No. 135 -(Vol.IX)

1SSN-0012-7671 Copyright ARVESReprinting of (parts of) this magazine is only permittedfor non commercial purposes and with acknowledgement.

January 2000

G. Slepian, his article on the Troitzky endgame can be found on page 43 ofthis magazine.

Editorial Board

John Roycroft,17 New Way Road,London,England NW9 6PLe-mail: roycroft@dcs.qmw.ac.uk

Ed van de GeveiBinnen de Veste 36,3811 PH Amersfoort,The Netherlandse-mail: egevel@qad.nl

Harold van der Heijden,Michel de Klerkstraat 28,7425 DG Deventer,The Netherlandse-mail: harold_van_der_heijden@wxs.nl

Spotlight-column:Jitrgen Fleck,Neuer Weg 110,D-47803 Krefeld,Germanye-mail: juergenfleck@t-online.de

Originals-column:Noam D. ElkiesDept of Mathematics,SCIENCE CENTEROne Oxford Street,Harvard UniversityCAMBRIDGEMass 02138U.S.A.e-mail: elkies@math.harvard.edu

Treasurer:Harm Benak,Kamperfoeliezoom 50,2353 RS Leiderdorp,The Netherlands

EG Subscription

EG is produced by the Dutch-FlemishAssociation for Endgame Study('Alexander Rueb Vereniging voorschaakEindspelStudie') ARVES.Subscription to EG is not tied tomembership of ARVES.The annual subscription of EG (Jan. 1 -Dec.31) is EUR 16 or (NLG 35) for 4issues. Payments should be in EUR orNLG and can be made by bank notes,Eurocheque (please fill in your validationor garantee number on the back), postalmoney order, Eurogiro or bank cheque.To compensate for bank chargespayments via Eurogiro or bank chequeshould be EUR 21 (or NLG 46) andEUR 25 (or NLG 55) respectively,instead of 16 (or 35).All payments can be addressed to thetreasurer (see Editorial Board) exceptthose by Eurogiro which should bedirected to: Post bank, accountnumber54095, in the name of ARVES,Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.Subscribers in the U.S.A. or U.K. canpay in an alternative way by making outa postal order or a cheque to a contactperson.

For the U.S.A. the subscription is $22, tobe made out to:Ph. Manning, 2890 Lee Rd, Shaker Hts,OH 44120.For the U.K. the subscription is £12, tobe made out to:W. Veitch, 13 Roffes Lane,Caterham (Surrey), England CR3 5PU.It is of course possible with any kind ofpayment to save bank charges by payingfor more years or for more personstogether, like some subscribers alreadydo.

1 .EditorialWith this issue EG marks thepopularly celebrated new millen-nium with the opening page ofVolume IX. But pages, like days inthe biblical proverb, are numbered- joke. The next few years willtransform EG, though the steps ofthe transformation are hidden fromus. The magazine will take to thedigital ether, remotely manipulatedby button, mouse and, for all weknow today, the twitch of a virtualearlobe. Change itself is so protean- the visual eerily and disturbinglytaking over from the other senses -that the once solid notions of pal-pable shape and measurablemovement dissolve into theungraspable. Does 'anticlockwise'mean anything to a child growingup with dot matrix and the lightemitting diode?Your editor's enthusiasm is notwilting, but it is another matterwith his disposable energy. Thereare many tourneys and much othermaterial awaiting dissemination. InDecember 1999 the pipelinesimulates a traffic jam. Technologymay well reduce or even eliminatepostage to relieve this blockage,and the same technology may evenreduce, though hardly eliminate, thenumber of unsound, anticipated andpoor studies that we see published.The sooner the better. Long livequality. Long live high standards.Hoist these flags to the masthead,even if as Java applets fluttering inthe corner of your screen. Butthat's the wrong note to end on.

Are not quality and high standardsvalues, and have we not justpointed out that the physical is onthe way out? Let's not forget thatchess is essentially abstract. Fingerscrossed it could all be good newsafter all!2. *C* After a noticeable absencefrom the oracle database scene KenThompson of BELLE fame hasentered the pawnless 6-manendgame fray. This is wonderfulnews. We understand that hisresults so far confirm the resultsobtained by Lewis Stiller in con-junction with Noam Elkies, but thistime more data has been kept.3. Magazines3.1 ORBIT is a new (1999) com-position magazine, a quarterly fromMakedonia. Its editor is ZhivkoJanevski, maestro of self-mates, sostudies content - biographical data,for instance - will be incidental.The helpmate and selfmateoriginals section is edited by ZoranGavrilovski.3.2 VERTIKAL is the currentgeneral chess magazine in Ukraine,apparently monthly, with somecoverage of composition. A28-page special issue in 1999celebrated problem composer andKotovski vesti columnist ViktorMelnichenko's 60th birthday.3.3 Sahovski Glasnik (ISSN1331-2901) from Zagreb (Croatia)is in its 74th year (not all yearsconsecutive). The compositionsection is edited by Josip Varga.4. EG/34 3.1 David Gurgenidzeadds to the list of missing study

tourney awards by drawing atten-tion to 64 - Shakhmatnoe obozrenieof 1976, where the announcedjudge was An.G.Kuznetsov. Atleast two problem awards for thatyear were made and published.3.2 Chingiz Aitmatov JT-60 (1988).Issue 31 of Shakhmatnaya kom-pozitsia (ixl999) carries an articleon the current state of compositionin Kirgizia (or Kyrgyzstan). Togeneral astonishment a study byA.Botokanov [dlf5 0000.26] isgiven as having won first prize inthis tourney, but no other detailsare supplied. AJR is investigatingfurther.

Obituaryt Wallace D. Ellison (1911-1999)A British study-composer over along period, teacher of mathema-tics, and for a short period (in1969) valued collaborator withWalter Veitch in EG's Spotlightcolumn. Harold van der Heijden'sfigure for Ellison's studies output:25.

An Episode with Ellisonby W.Veitch

VI W.Veitch (ca. 1950)

VI W.Veitch l.Kg5 f3 2.gxf3 Bxf33.Rxg3 Rxg3+ 4.Kh4 draw.An unpretentious puzzle which Iforgot about when I came acrossthe next.V2 F.Lazard=2/3 pr L Italia Scacchistica 1923

h6c5 0430.22 4/5 Draw

g5a8 0440.21 5/4 DrawV2 F.Lazard l.Bfl Bf3 2.Bg2!Rxg2 3.Rxg3 Rxg3+ 4.Kh4 draw.Lovely sparkle here, and an-ticipating me totally, 1923 beingthe year I was born! Sadly,however, a fatal flaw was dis-covered in a dual draw by I.h4.The search to save the Lazard andits sparkle was now on, but despitethe many possibilities all my effortskept being frustrated by duals.Meeting Ellison in 1969, I men-tioned this subject to him, and hedecided to devote some time to it.But he too met problems, writing:"The dual draw can be achieved invarious ways which makes it verypersistent. Reshuffling the Q-sidepieces fails to provide a cure, theversion with bKc6 the most disap-pointing because it removes thedual perfectly only to introduceanother by an unfortunate accident.Since bPg3 must be Black's only P

and white men would destroy thestalemate, extra material is prac-tically ruled out. Hence wB mustmove to fl with a capture or be putthere initially as shown below."V3 W.D.Ellison's version (1969)

V4 W.D.Ellison's version (1969)

g5c6 0440.21 5/4 DrawV3 W.D.Ellison The new dual drawis: l.Kf4 g2 2.Ke3 Ral 3.Rg6+Kxc5 4.Kf2 Be4 5.Rg5+ Kd46.Be2 draw."The trouble is caused by wB andbK being on the same rank. Out ofthe frying pan into the fire!"Without enthusiasm Ellisontherefore moved wB to fl, addingbPg5, the solution then: l.Kxg5Bf3 etc. "This is about as near asone can get to Lazard's study, butsome of the charm has vanishedalong with the. duals."Ellison then persisted with withtwo more elaborate versions:

g5a6 0444.21 6/5 DrawV4 W.D.Ellison l.Bd3+ Kxb72.Bxfl etc."Otherwise I think that W has togive up wR for gP."V5 W.D.Ellison version (1969)

g5b5 0444.22 6/6 DrawV5 W.D.Ellison "More fanciful andcould be full of holes.""These are merely illustrations of atype of position which might work:long shots do come off sometimes(but not too often)."I remember having doubts aboutboth positions, but failed to recordthem.

At this time we lost touch. He waselected Chairman of the AssistantMasters Association, which showsthe high regard in which he was

held in his profession, and no doubthe was then fully engaged represen-ting its interests nationally andinternationally.For my part my work took meabroad, and my interest in chess,long on the wane, died completely.

So this is an episode with no realend: two Ellison ideas left in limbo.But perhaps more is now known.Today's databanks may know of astudy showing Lazard's idea toperfection, perhaps even one byEllison in his later years.Alternatively, some keen readermay feel moved to tackle theproblem, including the correctnessor otherwise of V4IV5.

Bearing in mind Ellison's heavyprofessional, administrative andsocial duties at that time, it is mostremarkable that he was able to fitin any chess at all, let alone comeup with the many incisive com-ments and fecundity of ideas heproduced. Clearly a man of excep-tional intelligence and energy.

| Theodorus Cornelius LouisKOK 23xil906-v 1999From all accounts, Kok was a verylikeable man - unambitious, laconicand laid back, with a nice line inhumour. He composed with greatfacility but was never in a hurry topublish. Indeed, he seems to haveattached relatively little importanceto the creative side. Maybe hisRoman Catholicism had somethingto do with it (he joined the Ruy

Lopez club and contributedoriginals to its magazine), or per-haps it was just temperament. Hisstudies were mostly, but notexclusively, sent to Netherlandsoutlets such as De Schaakwereldand Residentiebode, and many wereincorporated into articles or savedup for books, some of which werepublished by others decades later.A famous first prize (key l.Sa8!! -see No.416 in '1234') competed inCzechoslovakia. The late JohnSelman, who was in prolongedcontact with Kok, acquired some ofthe material which was then redis-covered by Jan van Reek afterSelman's death.Kok's Problemen enEindspelstudien was self-publishedin December 1938, Wege zurEndspielstudie (consisting ofBauernendspiele and SchwarzeDamen in Zugzwang in Germantranslation, edited by Jan van Reek,and with a photo) in 1992. Personaldetails can be found in problemistHarry Johnson's article ImitatingKok in the November 1996 numberof Harrie Grondijs' Stes Journal,from which we learn, for example,that 'the summit' of Kok'schessplaying career was in a tour-nament in which he was 'lucky notto end last, because one contestanthad five zeroes, and I only four',and that 'in 1945, after the war, hehad stopped playing chess becauseof his professional career. He hadfelt that after his retirement as anactuary plenty of time wouldremain to become world chess

champion after all'. Harold van derHeijden puts Kok's output at 250studies. He was a significant figurein our world.

42nd FIDE PERMANENTCOMMISSION FOR CHESSCOMPOSITIONandWORLD CONGRESS OF CHESSCOMPOSITIONNetanya (Israel), 23-30x1999

Taking into consideration that thecongress was organised, by theimperturbable Uri Avner and hel-pers, at short notice after the initialvenue in Montenegro became foroverriding political reasonsunavailable, that such friendlyfacilities and so full a programmewere in place is truly remarkable:choice of hotel accommodation,availability of PCs, excursions to akibbutz and to the Sea of Galilee,bathing and sunbathing, books(many on studies) and magazineson offer, a noticeboard for lists andannouncements - all these added tothe traditional open solving andteam solving (WCSC) were woveninto the core activities of sessionsof the full PCCC.As regards the PCCC some 28countries sent delegates, notableabsentees being Spain, Mongolia,Kazakhstan, Greece and Denmark.The deaths of two Ukrainian studycomposers Anatoly ZINCHUK andPyotr GOLOVKOV were reported,as well as that of Th.C.L.Kok(Netherlands). The nine extant

subcommittees were constitutedaccording to who was present(delegates and others) and a tenth,for the general topic of 'judging'was formed and had one meeting.All the various FIDE competitionswere reported on and discussed,including the now less controversialtopic of individual world cham-pionships, to take place on a 3-yearbasis, the first period being1998-2000 and with unrestrictedentry; there was controversy,however, when on a vote jointcompositions were excluded,leaving the door open to clandes-tine collusion. On recommendationsby the qualifications subcommitteeseveral titles were awarded - butnone related to studies. The 2000venue will be Pula (Croatia,2-9Sep) for the third time, withWageningen (Netherlands) thefavourite for 2001.In the main solving, ie the WCSC,the six-round team event was wonby Russia, with studies specialistsComay (Israel) and Rumyantsev(Russia) taking the first two placesin the individual championship. Anextraordinary contribution to theWCSC was made by veteran BoLindgren (Sweden), who not onlyorganised the solving, helped byDirk Borst (Netherlands) and WardStoffelen (Belgium), but himselfcomposed a number of theoriginals, including studies. Thepublication of a WCSC original isthe decision of the composer. Thetwo Japanese solvers scored moreon the studies than the

combined efforts of the threeBritons (IGM Mestel included)!Under 'Any Other Business' AJRproposed that to lessen confusionabout sources the diagram captionto a composition honoured in aquick composing tourney organisedat these congresses should be stan-dardised, apart from 'Whisky' or'Vodka' or 'Urals' etc., to:

WCCC, [town], [year]

where WCCC stands for WorldCongress of Chess Composition. Inthis, there is no serial number, noreference to FIDE, and noreference to the PCCC, all of whichfactually mislead when applied tosuch tourneys. The suggestion willbe included as an appendix to theminutes.AJR had the new experience ofsharing a hotel room with mercurialGeorgian composing machineDavid Gurgenidze, who deemed thetime at Netanya one of his mostproductive fortnights. AJR verilybelieves that if David composesfewer than 50 studies in athree-year spell he takes himself tothe doctor to find out what iswrong...To come closer to studies matters.Two quick thematic study com-posing tourneys organised indepen-dently of the host country werewell supported, but the awardswere understandably not includedin the sheets distributed at theconcluding banquet, let alone toeach competitor. Instead they wereposted on a noticeboard - and then

removed. No doubt they will beincluded in a complete accountawaited from the Israeli organisers.Such quick tourneys, popular asthey are and amazing as the talentis to compose fast, are clearly un-satisfactory in their current form:there is no way that the judging ofa 'quick' tourney, however inter-national it may be, should counttowards qualification for the title ofinternational judge.The third studies judge for theFIDE Album 1995-97 selectiontourney will be Emilian Dobrescu(Romania), but as yet there is noreserve judge. The section director(AJR) is confident that the processwill be smooth since all threejudges can be expected to com-municate by e-mail.

Netanya 1999FIDE PCCC - Studies Subcommit-teeconvener/speaker: AJ.Roycroftinformal minutesThere were the following fouritems reported verbally to the fullCommission.1. Study of the Year The FIDEAlbum 1995-97 judges will berequested to choose one studyrepresenting each of the three yearsand suitable for popularising studiesin non-specialist chess columns.The selections can be publicised onthe Internet.2. Open Solving The subcommitteeexpressed its regret that no studywas included in the Open Solvingevent at Netanya.

3. FIDE Web Site The subcommit-tee reported with pleasure thatHannu Harkola (Finland) hadagreed to incorporate official sub-committee material in hisFIDE-related web site forworld-wide access by composers,judges and tourney organisers. Thetwo major items will be theGuidelines for Organisers of For-mal International tourneys forStudies promulgated at the PCCCMeeting in Bratislava in 1993, andthe report set out below. The web-site can be found athttp://www.se i. fi/~stniekat/pccc4. Studies 'extracted fromdatabases' Six signatures (NoamElkies opted not to sign) wereacquired for the following report. Itis a tentative first effort to addressa current thorny subject, and assuch is in the nature of a discussionpaper rather than a firm statement.PROPOSAL FOR THEGUIDANCE OF TOURNEYORGANISERS, COMPOSERSAND JUDGES0. DEFINITIONSconversion - the consequence of amove in an odb solution (ie seriesof optimal moves by both sides)where the force present changes, ieby capture or promotion.database - see odbdepth - the number of consecutiveoptimal moves needed by the win-ning side to checkmate or to con-version.metric - the component of the al-gorithm used to generate on odbwhereby the program can refer to

all target winning positions. Thereare in general only two metrics:checkmate; and (winning) conver-sion. The first task of the algorithmis to obtain or generate all winningpositions according to the chosenmetric.odb - 'oracle' database, otherwiseknown as total information databaseor tablebase. An odb is generatedby algorithm implemented by com-puter program for specific chessforce. When complete an odb canyield on request the true result ofany position for the force in ques-tion, and the optimal move ormoves (if any) where there is awin. Odb's for five chessmen (thekings included, but with no morethan a single pawn) have been inthe public domain since the 1980's.Pawnless odb's with six chessmenhave been generated and manyresults published, but with rareexceptions six-man odb's are notyet (in 1999) publicly available. Itis commonly assumed that odb'sfor one more chessman will beproduced every ten years. Althoughnot yet in general use the term'oracle database' is useful to distin-guish it from other types ofdatabase.optimal - an optimal move in aposition that is a win is a move thatwill win in fewer moves than anyother move (if any), or a move ofthe defence that will delay losslongest. A similar definition can beapplied to a position that is drawn.Technically, an optimal move bythe winning side reduces the depth

by 1, and an optimal move by thedefender maintains the depth unal-tered. See also metric.table-base - a compressed odb.1. In recent years judges andeditors have been faced with theinsurmountable difficulty of dis-tinguishing between a 'malyutka'(five men only) study composedtraditionally and one that mayhave been extracted from an odb.The studies subcommittee hasconsidered the situation andreports as follows.2. The skills needed to extract'studies' (ie optimal series ofunique moves to win or to draw)from an odb are distinct fromthe talent, creativity, techniqueand persistence needed fortraditional study composing.3. The subcommittee proposestwo principles:3.1 Traditional and odb studiesshould not compete in the sametourneys.3.2 However, the use of com-puters should be encouraged,because they can both assist inensuring soundness and be asource of ideas.4. The subcommittee thereforemakes the following recommen-dations.4.1 The use of odb's to verify thecorrectness of variations is accep-table.4.2 The use of odb output in amain line is acceptable, providedonly that the initial position hasat least one more chessmanpresent than is the maximum

supported by odb's on themarket.4.3 Obscure lines of play shouldbe accompanied by prose textexplaining what is happening.This explanation must satisfy thejudge. The source of the text maybe collective.4.4 Separate tourneys for odb'studies' should be organised.4.5 Judges of study tourneysshould familiarise themselveswith odb technology and withcurrent publicly available odb's.

Signed:Y. Afek (Israel)Hillel Aloni, NetanyaOfer Comay, IsraelGady Costeff, Israel and USADavid Gurgenidze, TbilisiNikolai Kralin, MoscowJohn Roy croft, London

Netanya, October 1999

ORIGINALS - 7editor: Noam Elkies

Starting about ten years ago, Hl.inkaand Vlasak have been developinga new tactical/geometrical studymotif in which forced material gainemerges from a web of mutualattacks. This new theme seemshard to define, or even to name: inhis 9/95 article in EBUR, Vlasakshowed the four examples thenexisting (all by either

10

Hlinka-Vlasak or Hlinka alone)under the title "Grip theme", but inrecent e-mail Vlasak seems to dis-sociate himself from that coinage -he attributes the name to L. Salai,Jr., and further writes that that"Grip" is a questionable translationfrom the Czech, suggesting alter-natives along the lines of"vise-grip" or "pincer". In 1997,Hlinka and Vlasak submitted a newsetting of this theme to thiscolumn; I'm happy to present ithere, and regret only that com-munication problems prevented itsearlier appearance:

No 11443 M.Hlinka, E.Vlasak,1997

g8e8 4830.12 5/7 WinNo 11443 M.Hlinka, E.Vlasak,l.Qg6+/i Kd8 2.Rxc6/ii Rg4!3.Rh8!!/iii Rxg6+/iv 4.Kf7+ Be8+5.Rxe8+ Kd7 6.Rxe7+ Kd87.Re8+!/v Kd7 8.Ree6!!/vi andwins after 8...Rxc6 9.dxc6+ or8...Rxe6 9.dxc6+ Kxc6 10.e7, thewin in the ensuing 1300.01 positionbeing confirmed by *C*.i) I.dxc6?! Bxe6+ 2.Kh8/vii Rg4!followed by safely capturingWhite's last pawn (3.Qc5(hl) Rc4,

3.Qbl Rxc6 4.Qb8+ Rc8) for adraw.l.Rxc6? Rg4+ 2.Qxg4 Bxg43.Rxa6 Bxh3 4.Rxa7 Bg2 5.Ra5Kd7 holds too.ii) 2.dxc6?? Rxe6 3.Qd3 Raxc6 andBlack wins.iii) 3.Qxg4? Bxg4 4.Rxa6 Bxh35.Rxa7 Bg2 6.Ra5 Kd7 and

3.Rxa6? Rxg6+ 4.Rxg6 Bxh35.Kf7 Kd7 6.Ra6 Bg2 draw as inthe last line of (i).iv) 3...Rxc6!? see below,v) 6.Rxg6? Rxg6 7 Re7+ Kd8!holds, as does 6xRce6? Rh6!7.R6e7+ Kd6 8.Rd8+ Kc5 9.Rc7+Kd4 10.Rc6 Raxc6! Il.dxc6+ Kc512x7 Rh7+.vi) The point! Black is nowGripped. 8.Re7+ Kd8 only repeats,vii) Harold van der Heijden pointsout the trick 2.Kg7! Rg4+? 3.Qxg4Bxg4 4.Rg8#! Correct is 2...Bxh3!3.Qg6+ Kd8 4.Qxe4 Bc8! 5.Kf8Kc7! with a draw.The heavy setting is mostlyexplained by the complicatedmechanism of the theme (howevernamed), in which all four Rooksparticipate as well as the Whitepawn and Black King. Here someheavy analysis is also needed, todispose of 3...Rxc6!? : after 4.K17+Kc7 5.Qbl Rb6 white has savedthe Queen but must still prove awin. For instance the composersanalyze 6.Qcl+? Kd6! 7.Rd8! Re4!(against Qe3) 8.Qg5 Rbb4! 9.Qf5(9.Qg3+ Rf4+ 10.Kg7 e5! Il.dxe6Kxe6) 9...Rf4 10.Rxd7+ Kc5ll.Rc7+ Kb5 12.Qxf4 Rxf4+13.Kxe7 a5 to a draw. Instead they

prescribe 6.Qel!, intending 7.Qe5.Black cannot stop this with7...Rg5? because of 8.Qcl+. If6...Rgb4 7.Kxe7 Bg4 8.d6+ Kb79.d7 or 6...Rd6 7.Qa5+Kb78.Kxe7 Rb6 9 Qc3 Bf5 10 d6 wins.Four main defenses remain:6...Rbg6 7.Qe5+ Kb6 8.Rb8+ Ka69.Qe2+ Ka5 10.Qd2+ Ka6 ll.Qd3+Ka5 12.Qa3+ Ba4 13.Qc3+ Ka614.Qc8+ Ka5 15.Qc7+ Rb616.Qxa7+ Ra6 17 Qc7+ mates.6...Rgg6 7.Qe5+, and now Rbd68.Kxe7! Ba4 9.Rd8 Rg7+ 10,Qxg7Rxd8 ll.Qc3+, or 7...Kb7 8.Rb8+Ka6 9.Qal+ Kb5 10.Qxa7 Rxb8ll.Qxd7+ Kc5 12.Kxg6 and wins.6...Rbb4! 7.Qe5+ Kb7 8.Qb8+(8.Kxe7!? is less clear) Ka6 9.Rh6+Rb6.10.Rxb6+'axb6 ll.Qa8+! Kb512.Qb7! (ejecting Bd7 from thea4-e8 diagonal) and now Bf513.Qc6+ Ka6 14.Kxe7 Rh4(14...Rg7+ 15.Kf6! Rg6+ 16.Kxf5Rxc6 17.dxc6) 15.d6 Rh7+ 16.Kf6Bd7 17xQa8+Kb5 18.Qd5+Kb419.Qe4+, or 12...Rf4+ 13.Kxe7 andagain two branches:Bg4 14.Qc6+ Ka6 15.d6 Rd416.Qc3 Re4+ 17.Kf6 Rf4+ 18.Kg5Ra4 19.Qd3+ b5 2O.d7, or 13...Bh314.Qc6+ Ka6 15.d6 Rd4 16.Qc3Re4+ 17.Kf6 Rf4+ 18.Kg5 Rg4+19.Kh5.6...Kb7 7.Qxe7 Rf4+ 8.Kg7 Rg4+9.Kh7 Ka6! (again followingH.v.d.Heijden; Kc7 10.Ra8 Ra6ll.Qd8+ Kd6 12.Qf6+ wins)10.Rf8 Rg6 ll.Qa3+ Kb7 12.Rf7Rh6+ 13.Kg8 Rbg6+ 14.Rg7!(clearer than 14.Kf8 Rh8+ 15.Ke7Bb5!, gaining tempo for 16...a6)

14...Rxg7+ 15.Kxg7 Ra6 16.Qe7Kc8 17.d6 Rc6 18.Kf7 a6 19.Qe5Rb6 20.Ke7 Bc6 21.Qc5. Whew!

Umnov provides lighter fare, amalyutka with a delightful logicalpoint:No 11444 G. Umnov, 1999

h5f5 0310.10 3/2 DrawNo 11444 G. Umnov Rook againstBishop and pawn is usually a "deaddraw", but here White must becareful not to let Black capture thepawn while keeping his Kingtrapped on the edge of the board.After l.Bf8!/i Rh7+/ii 2.Bh6Rh8/iii White would lose with3.a4? Rh7 4.a5 Rh8 5.a6 Rh7 6.a7Rxa7, so 3.a3! Rh7 4.a4 Rh8 5.a5Rh7 6.a6 Kf6 7.a7 draws (also Rh87.a7; as Harold notes there is alasno variation where White can onlydraw by completing the Excelsior,e.g. if 7...Kf6 White holds either bypromoting or playing 8.Kg4).Conversely if l...Rf7 2.Bh6 Rh7/ivWhite loses with 3.a3? but drawswith 3.a4! reaching the samepositions a move earlier. Thethematic lines l...Rh7+: 3.a3! (a4?)andl...Rf7: 3.a4! (a3?) show the Israel

-St. Petersburg match theme ofreciprocal change between try andsolution. This and eight positionsof mutual Zugzwang in a studywith only five men![The Zugzwang count includespositions with Kf6, but not theposition Kh5,Bh6,a7/Kf5,Rh8,which need not arise WTM. Thisninth Zugzwang requires someprecise Black maneuvers to winafter l.a8Q Rxa8 2.Bg7, since theusual trick of going to the first rankfor 3.Kh4(h6) Rhl+(#) fails withBg7 covering al! The winning lineruns 2...Ra4! 3.Bf8! Rg4! 4.Kli6Rg6+! 5.Kh7 Kf6 followed by...Kf7 and the familiar procedurefor flushing out the Bishop fromthe top three ranks.]i) Black threatened Rh7# as well asRxa3, and l.Bcl? shows the dangerWhite faces: l...Rc7! 2.Be3/v Re73.Bg5/vi Rg7 4.Be3 (Bh6 Rgl)Rg3 5.B£2 Rg2 6.Bel (Bh4 Rg8)Rh2+ 7.Bh4 Rxa2 and wins (8.Bg3Ral etc.)

ii) Ra8 2.Bg7 Ra4 3.BJS Rg4 4.Bc5Rc4 5.Bd6 Rc6 6Bb4 Rb6 7.a3draws. 1... Rf7 is the other mainline.iii) Or Kf6; here and later Blackcan shuttle his King between f6 andf5, and/or his Rook between h7 andh8, but cannot lose the move,iv) 2...RJ6 3.Be3 Re6 4.Bf2 Re25.Bg3 drawsv) 2.Bd2(h6) Rc2 3.Bg5 Rh2+4.Bh4 Rxa2 reaches the same endmore quickly.vi) 3.Bel Rel 4.Bg5 Rgl 5.Be7(Bh4 Rg8) Rg7 6.Bf8 Rg8 7.Bh6

Rgl wins (but not Rh8 and Whiteescapes after all with 8.a3!)Since presently available databasescover the 0310.10 material of Um-nov's study, the correctness of thestudy can be guaranteed. By fin-ding so economical a setting, thecomposer has paradoxically runafoul of a recent movement toexclude from competition any studycontained by an existing database,on the grounds that the study mighthave been extracted from thedatabase rather than composed in acreative human act. We can an-ticipate much debate on thephilosophical and practical meritsof such proposals; fortunately incase of Umnov's study these con-cerns can be put aside, because thestudies in our column do not par-ticipate in any tourney: we printthem for the benefit of the reader,who can enjoy them regardless oftheir provenance. This column willthus not discriminate against studiesthat were or might have beenextracted from exhaustivedatabases. None of this is meant tosuggest that No 11444 was in factthus extracted. To my knowledge itis not (yet?) feasible to search adatabase for a position showingreciprocal change between try andsolution. It is true that this par-ticular instance of the theme couldhave been discovered starting froma computer-generated list of mutualZugzwangs in 0310.10; but AJRassures me that Umnov is mostunlikely to have composed thisstudy with database assistance.

Apropos exhaustive computeranalyses and mutual Zugzwangs: Iclosed the previous column withthe challenge to find some or all ofthe six mutual Zugzwangs withQ+B vs. Q+R in which the B sidestands to win. Here are the .positions, computed by LewisStiller in 1992 and published herefor the first time:#1 Ka3 Qb3 Be3 Kcl Qel Rd2#2 Kcl Qc4 Bc3 Kal Qa3 Rb2#3 Kb3 Be3 Qh5 Kdl Qel Re2#4 Ka3 Qd3 Bh6 Kcl Qg4 Rf4#5 Kd2 Qd3 Bbl Kb2 Qal Rb2#6 Kc3 Qc5 Bd5 Kcl Qa6 RflAs with the three mutualZugzwangs with Q+S vs. Q+R,these six *C* positions, onceknown, can be understood by *H*(human) analysis. We point out thehighlights here, leaving theinterested reader to work out othervariations. In #2, BTM getspin-mated on either l...Qb3 2.Qa6+Qa2 3.Bxb2# (Q pinned) or l...Qa22.Qd3(e4) and 3.Qbl# (R pinned);WTM l.Bd4 Qa2? 2.Qd3? Qc4+!3.Qxc4 (pin-stalemate) but 2.Qc2!wins, so l...Qe3+! 2Bxe3 Rc2+3.K(Q)xc2 stalemate. In #4, BTMhas only l...Qh4 (l...Qg52.Qc3(e3)+), met by the quiet2.Kb3! and the additional matethreat at c2 overwhelms Black,whose first move gave up thechecking replies 2...Qg8(dl,e6).We trust the 5-man databases forthe WTM draw after l.Qfl+ Kc2!2.Bxf4. #6 is the mostcomplicated, but none of its manylines are difficult or long. For

instance, if Rfl moves off the firstrank then 2.Qe3+ Kbl (Kdl3.Bb3#) 3.Qg-l+ mates, while if itmoves on the first rank then Whitehas at least 2.Kb3+ Kd2 3.Qc3+winning the Queen on Kdl 4.BO+(Rxf3?) or Ke2 4.Bc4+. Thisleaves L..Rf3+ 2.Bxf3 when the4010 database confirms a quickWhite win, e.g. 2...Qf6+ 3.Kb3+Kd2 4.Qf2+. Most moves of theQa6 quickly succumb to Kd3+ orQe3+, while L..Qe2 allows 2.Qa3+Kbl 3.Be4+! and mates next.WTM presumably gets nowherewith l.Qe3+ Kbl 2.Be4+ Kal,l.Kb4+ Kb2(bl), or l.K-b3+ Kdl.Note that most of the nine mutualZugzwangs in 4301/4310 hinge onsuch rare tactical effects as sacrificeof White or Black pieces, pin-mate(also in #1), stalemate includingpin-stalemate, and (in #5) matewith one or two self-blocks. Thefact that Stiller's computationtreated these unusual cases cor-rectly, and that no further mutualZugzwangs have been found,bolsters our confidence in his com-putations. Support from anotherdirection is on the way: after a longhiatus in exhaustive six-mananalysis, several programmers arenow independently working on theproject, and will soon verifyStiller's results and obtain newones such as complete lists ofZugzwangs and their BTM depth.We eagerly await the new data,which will surely appear in thepages of coming issues of EG.

14

SPOTLIGHTeditor: Jiirgen Fleck

Many thanks to Spotlight'scontributors Marco Campioli(Italy), Luis Miguel Gonzales(Spain), Peter Gyarmati (Hungary),Harold van der Heijden (Nether-lands), Eduardo Iriarte (Argentina),Michael Roxlau, Peter Schmidt(both Germany) and JulienVandiest (Belgium).

EG 125No 10662, G.Costeff. Recently Icame across the following com-panion piece to this study, dis-guised as a mate in 16: G.Werner,Die Schwalbe 1995, 2nd prize,c8hl 0443.36b 1 a2a4a 1 g 1 .b6e5g4a3b2b.7e6g2h26/10+, l.Bdl (l.Bc6?) Sh3 2.BB+Sgl 3.Bd5 exd5 4.e6 d4 5.e7 d36.e8B d2 7.Ba4 dlQ 8.Bxdl Sh39.BB+Sgl 10.Bc6 (compared tothe try l.Bc6 the e-pawns havedisappeared) bxc6 11.b7 c5 12.b8Qc4 13.Qg3 c3 14.Qh4 c2 15.Rxgl+Kxgl 16.Qel mate. This problemcould also figure as a study, as thissequence is the only way to win. Ileave it to the readers to convincethemselves that there is no win forWhite in the unusual positionsarising from 4.Kxb7 or 6.e8Q.EG 130No 11065, P.Arestov.The composer corrects this byadding a wPg3.

EG 131No 11213, L.Katsnelson. Thecomposer submits the followingcorrection: g3a5 0131.03C4d8b8.g2g4h3 3/5 •=, l.Rc5+ Ka42.Kh2 g3+ 3.Kgl Bb6 4.Sd7 Ba75.Sb6+ Kb4 6.Rb5+ Kxb5stalemate.EG 132No 11255, L.M.Gonzales. Thecomposer confirms that the mainline should read 1.... Qb2+.No 11268, J.Vandiest The studycan be saved by choosing another13th move as the main line."No 11268 shows the remarkableinstance of a study which is correct(or so it seems) in spite of its com-poser. Fact is that, in my first draftof it, I first interposed the bB, andonly afterwards the bS. I was underthe (false) impression, at that time,that this course of events enhancedthe solution, but as things haveturned out now the opposite is true.So I submit to your scrutiny: 13....Bh5 14.Qxh5+ Kg7 15.Qg6+(15.Qg4+ Kh7 16.Qh4+ Kg717.Qg3+ Kh8 draw) Kh8 16.Qf6+Kh7 17.Qe7+ Kg8 18.Qd8+ Kh719.Qc7+ Kg8 2O.Qb8+ Kg7 (20:...BCh7 21.Qb7+- Kg8 22.Qa8+ Kh723.Qhl+ as below) 21.Qxe5+ Kh722.Qc7+ Kg8 23.Qb8+ Kh724.Qb7+ Kg8 25.Qa8+ Kh726.Qhl+ Sh3 (26.... Kg8 27.Qxgl+Kh8 28.Kf6 Qg8 29.Qh2+ Qh73O.Qb8+ Qg8 3 l.BfB wins)27.Qxh3+ Kg8 28.Qg3+ Kh729.Qc7+ Kg8 3O.Qb8+ Kg7 (30....Kh7 31.Qb7+ Kg8 32.Qa8+ Kh733.Qhl+ Kg8 34.Qgl+ Kh8 35-.Kf6

wins) 31.Bb2+ Kf7 32.Qb7+ Ke833.Kf6 Kd8 34.Bd4 and mate.Convincing, I hope?"(Julien Vandiest, additional lines inbrackets by JF).No 11312, V.Prigunov. This wasgiven as unsound in a previousSpotlight. However, the positionafter 1.... Kh4 2.Bxb3 Rbl 3.Sf6Rxb3 4.e7 Re3 5.e8Q Rxe8+6.Sxe8 Kxh5 is a simple win forWhite: 7.Kh7 Bf8 8.Sg7+ Kg49.Se6. So it seems that there isnothing wrong with this study.EG 133p.555, P.Hage. The finale is notunique, e.g. 5.Qxb7 Kdl 6.Qb2wins.A7a, p.561, I.AIiev. The databasepoints out two cooks: Firstly 2.b5Sxe5 3.b6 Kg7 4.b7 Sd7 (4.... Sc65.Kg4 Kg6 6.Bf4 Kf6 7.KB Kf58.Ke3 Kf6 9.Ke4 Ke6 10.Bg3 Ke71 l.Kd5 Kd7 12.Kc5 wins) 5.Kg4Kg6 6.Kf4 Kf7 7.Kf5 Ke8 8.Bf6Kf7 9.Bd4Ke7 10.Bc5+Ke8ll.Bb4 Sb8 (11.... Kd8 12.Bd6wins; or 11.... Kf7 12.Bd6 wins)12.Ke6 Sc6 13.Ba5 Sb8 14.Kd6Sa6 15.Bc7 Kf7 16.Kc6 wins, andsecondly l.Bh6 Sxb3 2.e6 Sc5 3.e7Se4 4.Bg5 Sd6 (so far foreseen bythe composer) 5.Bf6 Kg8 6.Kg6Se8 7.Be5 Sg7 8.Kf6 Se8+ 9.Ke6and wins.A7b, p.562, I.AIiev. The sourcesays "Die Schwalbe 1998", but infact the study was not publishedthere because of its similarity toMario Matous, «64» 1987,h5h7 0003.30 d7.c5e5g5 4/2 +,I.e6 (I.c6?, I.g6+?) Nxc5 2.e7 Se4

(2.... Nd7 3.Kh4) 3.g6+ (3.e8Q?Nf6+) Kg7 4.e8S+ Kf8 5.g7+ Kf76.Kh6 and wins. The latter study istaken from the wonderful collection"Matous under the Microscope",compiled by Emil Vlasak.A10, p.563, F.Bondarenko.An ugly dual: 6.Sb6.A15, p.565, B.Prokes.After 1.... Bc6 the flashy 2.Bd5 isnot necessary, as 2.b7 Kc7 3.Bd5wins, too.No 11322, V.Kirillov,V.Kondratev. No solution: 3....Ke2 4.Ra3 Kel (releasing thestalemate after 5.Ra2 Bxa2) winsfor Black. White is at a loss for areasonable move: 5.Rh3 Ba2 ishopeless (6.Rhl+ Ke2 7.Rh2+ Kf38.Rhl Be6 9.Kbl Bf5+ 10.Ka2 Bc2ll.Rel Kf2 12.RM Be5), while5.Kbl allows 5.... Kd2 6.Rb3(6.Rc3 Bd3+) Bd3+ 7.Ka2 Kcl andwins.No 11323, P.Arestov. A dual:5.Bd3+ Kxd3 (else 6.gxh3) 6.Rxb8draw.No 11324, Y.Afek, N.Kralin.Unsound. Not only are there acouple of wins for Black on move1 (1.... Sf5 2.f8Q Sd4+ 3.Ke7 Sd5+4.Ke8 Sc7+ 5.Ke7 Sc6+ is par-ticularly simple), but the finale isspoilt by the dual 5.Ke7 Sd5+6.Ke8 Se5 7.g8Q and there is nowin for Black (7.... Ra6 8.Kf8).No 11326, G.Nekhaev. Both twinsare cooked by 7.Kd7 Kxa4 8.Kc6a5 9.Kc5 g5 10.h5 g4 ll.Kd4 andwins.No 11327, V.Kondratev,Yu.Solovyov. Unsound: 2.Sa2+

16

Kdl 3.Sc3+ is an immediate draw.Furthermore there is LSc5 mate.No 11328, G.Amiryan. Unsound:3.Rb3 mates quickly. Later 5.Kb3Qdl+ 6.Kc4 Qfl+ 7.Kd5 is a dualwin.No 11330, A.Foguelman. Un-sound. After 5.Rh7 Black cannotdisentangle: 5.... Kb3 (trying toreach b7) 6.Rh3+ Ka4 7.Rhl Ra8(7 Sb5 8.Ral + Sa3 9.Kc6 draw)8.Ral+ Kb3 9.Rbl+ Kc3 10.Rb7c6 11.Rh7 (intending Kc5-b6-b7)draw.No 11331, S.Radchenko. UnsoundSeveral readers submitted someanalysis, but we will content our-selves with the following line, thatshows that the critical position iswon for Black: 3.... Rfl 4.Ra2(White can do nothing but wait:4.Kd3 Kb5 wins; 4.Kb3 a2 5.Rxa2Kd5 wins; 4.Rc2 Rf2 wins) RO5.Re2 (5.Rxa3 e2 wins; 5.Kd3 Kb56.Ke4 Rfl wins) Rf4+ 6.Kb3(6.Kc3 Ra4 wins; 6.Kd3 Kb5 wins)Re4 7.Kxa3 Kc5 and Black wins,as the white rook is miserablyplaced: 8.Kb3 Kd4 9.Kc2 Rf4lO.Kdl Rfl+ ll.Rel Rf2 12.KclKd3 13.Rdl+ Rd2 14.RM Rc2+15.Kbl e2.No 11334, K.Osul. No solution:5.... glQ 6.h7+ Kf7 7.h8Q Sg5+8.Kh4 Se6 wins for Black, e.g.9.g8Q+ Qxg8 10.Qxg8+ Kxg8ll.Kg4 Kf7 12.Kf5 Sc5 13.Ke5Sb3.No 11337, G.Amiryan,S.Tkatchenko. This has been poor-ly analysed. First of all there is thedual 9.Kf4, and now either 9....

Kgl 10.Kg3 c5 ll.Rh4Bfl 12.Rg4draw (12.... h2? 13.Kf3+ even winsfor White) or 9.... c5 10.Ke5 Kg3ll.Rg6+Kh2(ll. . . . Kf3 12.Rh6Kg4 13.Rg6+ Kh5 14.Rg8 draw)12.Rh6 c4 13.Kd4 Bfl 14.Rg6draw. Moreover, the main line isspoilt by the odd 5.... Be4 (betterBd5 at once), which is merely aninvitation for White to play 6.Ke5Bg2 7.Kf4 with a draw: 1.... c5(7.... Kgl 8.Kg3 see above) 8.Rh5c4 9.Ke3 Kg3 10.Kd4 Bfl II.RI18h2 12.Rg8+ Kf2 13.Rh8 Kgl14.Rg8+ Bg2 15.Rh8. Finally theanalysis of the try 4.Rh8? is full ofmistakes: 4.... Kxh2 5.Kd6 BO6.Ke5 Kg3 7.Rg8+ Bg4 wins forBlack (with the rook on the 6thrank the c-pawn could be takennow).

No 11339, An.Kuznetzov. Nosolution: 5.... Kxb2 6.Ka5 Ral+(6.... Rel 7.Bxfl Kc3 8.Bxa6 Rxe7wins, too) 7.Kb6 Rel 8.Bxfl Kc39.Kc6 Rxe7 10.Bxa6 Kxb4 winsfor Black.No 11341, V.Kichigin. A dual:8,Rel hlQ 9.Re8+ Kb7 10.c8Q+Kb6 ll.Qc5+ Ka6 12.Re6 wins.No 11344, G.Amiryan. There aremany alternative draws: 9.Rxd8+Kxd8 lO.Ral draw; or 8.e6 Rcl +(8 elQ 9.Rac7+ Kd8 10.e7+)9.Kd4 Rb4+ 10.Kd3 elS+ ll.Kd2draw; or 7.Kc6 Rxa8 8.Rc7+ Kb89.Rb7+draw.No 11346, B.Kaznelson. Notoriginal, compare A.Gulyayev,Shahkmaty v SSSR 1947, 3rdprize.No 11348, N.Kralin. Perhaps the

17

line 9.... Kb5 10.Rc5+ Ka6ll.Rc6+ Ka7 12.Ra6+ Kb813.Ra8+ Kc7 14.Rc8+ Kd7 15.Rb8Rxb8 stalemate should figure as themain line. After the given 9.... Rb8White has an alternative draw by10.Rb6 Be5 ll.Rb4+.No 11349, A.Kotov. Unsound: 6....Rg8 7.fxe7 Kd2 8.Kxa2(8.d6? Kc2mates) Kc2 9.Ka3 Kc3 10.Ka2(10.Ka4? Kd4 Il.d6 Kc5) Kc2draw.No 11350, V.Kalyagin,B.Mitrofanov. The given solutiondoes not make much sense. 3....Rb5+? is clearly bad, as it onlyhelps White to bring his kingcloser, while 4.... Rc5+? givesaway a rook for nothing. It seemsto me that 3.... clQ is the intendedmain line of this study.No 11351, V.Katsnelson. Nosolution: after 3.... Rh2 White willlose his last pawn, and there is nopromising mating attack in sight.No 11353, I.Bondar. No solution:2.... Kc7 3.Sxa7 Bg2+ 4.Sc6 Kb65.Kb8 Bxc6 6.Sd3 Bb5 7x5+ Kc68.Shf4 Ba6 (MR) with an unusualpositional draw. Incidentally, this isreciprocal zugzwang: 9.Ka7 Bb510.Ka8 Bc4 ll.Kb8 Ba6 and so on.No 11355, S.Berlov. A dual:4.Rxb6 Ka5 5.Rb8 alQ 6.Bb6+.No 11356, G.Amiryan. Unsound.Black draws by 4.... Sd4(b4)5.Bxg6 Sc6+. However, Whitecould have won before by 2.Be6.No 11367, M.Gogberashvili. Nosolution, I.... Bbl is a win onmaterial.

EG 134No 11371, E.Dobrescu. There is aflaw in the introduction (2.... e2draw), which looks easy to correct.However, two readers came upwith ideas that threaten the centralmechanism of this study. El wantsto cook this by 8.... Rb7+ 9.Kc8(9.Kc6 Ra7) Rb4 10.Rxe2 Rc4+ll.Kb7 Rb4+ 12.Kc7 Rc4+ draw.But White can do better: 10.Bc6!Rb2 (10.... Rc4 ll.Kd7 Rd4+12.Kc7 Rd2 13.Bb5 wins) ll .Rhl!(not ll.Kc7 Rc2 12.Kb7 Rb2+13.Ka6 Ra2+ 14.Kb5 Rb2+ 15.Ka4Rb4+ 16.Ka5 Rb2 with a positionaldraw) Bb4 12.Rh7+ Kf6 13.Rb7and wins. MR suggests an alter-native win by 7.Rd3 Bb4 8.RG+Kg7 9.Re4! Kg6 (9.... elQ10.Rg4+ and mate) 10.Rg4+ Kh5ll.Rgl and wins, but here Blackdraws by 7.... Bf2 8.RB+ Kg79.Rxf2 elQ.

No 11373, G.SIepyan. The ideasshown in this study are wellknown, e.g. V.Chekhover,Shakhmaty v SSSR 1955, 1st half-year, 3rd HM, a5a2 0033.42Clg5.e4e6f4h3d7g6 5/5+, I.e7Bd2+ 2.Kb6! (2.Ka4 Sxe4 3.e8QSc3+ 4.Kb4 Se4+ 5.Ka4 Sc3+6.Ka5 Sd5+ 7.Ka4 Sc3+ draw isthe thematic try) Be3+ 3.Kc7!Bxf4+ (3.... Se6+ 4.Kxd7 Sg7 5.e5Kb3 6.e6 Kc4 7.e8Q Sxe8 8.Kxe8Kd5 9.Kf7 Bc5 10.h4 wins) 4.e5!(deflecting the bishop to anotherdiagonal, where he ends up block-ing a square for the knight) Bxe5+5.Kb6 (5.Kxd7 Se4 6.Ke6 Sf67.Kxe5 Se8 draw) Bd4+ 6.Ka5

18

Bc3+ and only now 7.Ka4 andwins.No 11376, D.Gurgenidze. It seemsthat computers are not good atdetecting printer's errors. Thesolution should read 17.Kb6, andthere is no unsoundness.No 11380, A.Ivanov. The samecomment applies here, note ii)should read 3.... Bg2 4.Rc4 Rd65.Rc3 etc (please note 5.... h46.Rd3 Bd5 7.Bc6). However, witha little common sense we can beatFritz and cook this study. Thesimple 2.Be6 covers the d-pawn,keeps the h-pawn under control andpaves the way for the white king.White wins: 2.... h4 3.Rc8 Bg24.d8Q Rxd8+ 5.Rxd8 h3 6.Rd7wins; or 2.... BG (hoping for 3.Rc8Bg4) 3.Bd5 wins (actually we havetransposed to the solution); or 2....Kg5 3.Rc8 Kf6 4.Rxa8 Kxe65.d8Q Rxd8+ 6.Rxd8 Kf5 7.Kg7h4 8.Kh6 wins; or finally 2.... Rd6(hoping for 3.Rc8? Bd5 4.Bf5 Be4etc.) 3.Kg8 Kg6 4.Kf8 Kf6 5.Bh3Be4 (5.... Bf3 6.Ke8 Bg4 7.Bxg4hxg4 8.Rc6) 6.Ra7 Bd3 7.Rb7(threatening Rb6) wins.No 11385, A.Skripnik. Unsound.White can win by an ordinary .mating attack against the corneredblack king. Here is a sample line:l.Rd7 (intending Ke2, Re7 andSe4, when the bishop is dislodgedand the knight c2 enters the attack)Kg2 2.Ke2 Rg4 3.Re7 Bc5 4.Re8Ra4 (trying to generate somecounterplay) 5.Se4 Ra2 6.Rg8+Kh2 7.Kfl Kh3 8.Sel Bb6 9.Rg3+

10.SB+ Kh5 ll.Rg5+ K\\6

12.Se5 and wins.No 11390, D.Yakimovich. Nosolution: 4.... Rxd7 5.c8Q Bb5+6.Kb4 (6Kxb5 Rd5+ 7.Kb4 Rb5+)Rd4+ 7.Kb3 Rd3+ 8.Kc2 Rxg3draw.No 11392, V.Kalandadze. MRwonders what the pawns d3 and h3are for. There seems no harm inremoving them.No 11410, A.Frolovsky. Accordingto the notes there are duals galore.However, I fail to find any fault inthis masterpiece. First of all, 3.Ka3throws away the win: 3.... Sf44.Rg3 Se2 5.Rg5 Kc6 6.Be3 Bxf3(now the white king is too faraway) 7.Kb3 Be4 draw. The"numerous duals from move 11onwards" refer to move-repeatingsequences like ll.Kbl Kd7 12.KalKc6, which Spotlight's editor doesnot consider as flaws. The route tovictory is strictly unique. Finally,note ii) should read 6.Kc4 (6.Kc2?Bc6) Kb7 (the threat was Rg7)7.Kd3 followed by Bd2 and Ke3.No 11411, V.Nestorecsu. Is there awin after 2.... Ka5 (intending 3.Rli7Ka4)?No 11412, Gh.Umnov. Sent tomore than one tourney, see EG128.10954. Unfortunately, there isthe dual 4.Rh3, see Spotlight in EG129.No 11416, H.Steniczka. Accordingto the notes 2.Qe6 is a dual.However, I see no win for Whiteafter 2.... Qb4.No 11417, L.Katsnelson. Unsound,there is an alternative draw byl.Kf2.g4 2.Rbl+ Kxa7 3.Ral+ Kb7

4x6+ KM 5.Rbl+ Kc8 6.Ral Rb87.Ra5 Rb2+ 8.Kfl. Black's mainthreat Rg2 is very dangerous, butfirst of all his king must decide ona move. 8.... Kd8 is basically thedirection where he wants to go, butthis gives White a couple of usefultempi: 9.Rd5+ Ke7 10.Rxe5+ Kd6(10.... Kf6 ll.Rf5+ and 12.Rf4)ll.Rd5+ Ke6 (11.... Kxc6 12.Rxd4followed by e5) 12.Rd7! (but not12.Rxd4 Rg2 13.Rd7 Rxg314.Rxc7 Rh3 and Black wins) Rb5(here 12.... Rg2 13.Rxc7 Rxg314.Rg7 is good for White) 13.Rxc7Rxh5 14.Rg7 Rhl + 15.K£2 h516x7 Rcl 17.Rh7 draw. 8.... Kb8is no improvement, as the king issimply too far away from the ac-tion. A sample line is 9.Rxe5 Rg210.Re6 Rxg3 H.Rxh6 Rh3 (11...Rg2 12.Rg6 g3 13.h6 draw) I2.Kf2Rh2+ 13.Kg3 Rg2+ 14.Kh4 f215.Rf6 g3 16.h6 and White is notworse.

No 11426, S.Osintzev. Anticipatedby G. van Breukelen, SchakendNederland 1969, 1st comm., EG25.1365 (f4el 0032.02 b6flf5.g2h63/4=, l.Sd2 Kxd2 2.Sh4 Be3+3.Kf5 glQ4.Sf3+ Kdl 5.SxglBxgl 6.Kf4 Ke2 7.Kg4z Kfl8.Kg3z draw).No 11424, V.Kalandadze. Playand finale are anticipated byY.Bazlov, Roycroft-JT 1978, EG57.3791 (d6c3 0131.02h8d8h5.d3d7 3/4+, l.Sg3 d22.Se4+ Kd3 3.Sxd2 BUS 4.Rh2 Bg55.SO Bf4+ 6.Se5+ Ke4 7.Rh5 Bg38.Bg5 Bf4 9.Rg4 Ke4 10.Re4z). Itfollows that No 11427 by

A.Hildebrand is anticipated, too.No 11435, V.Anufriev. It seemsthat wRd5 should be on d4 in theoriginal position. Otherwise thethematic try doesn't make sense.No 11437, J.Infantozzi. As HvdHpoints out, this study was alreadypublished in 1964 (ProblemasSEP A) and reprinted in EG(19.980)!

CORRESPONDENCEeditor: John Roycroft CJ3Submissions to the editor -John Roycroft, 17 New Way Road,ENGLAND NW9 6PL or e-mail:roycroft@dcs.qmw.ac.uk - shouldbe marked 'for EG correspondencesection'

re: EG134from Walter Veitch, Caterham:

....the October issue of EG,an unrelieved 50-page dirge, regar-ding which I can only echoHildebrand's regret (p.613) that thecompetition was ever started. It isparticularly unfortunate that such aponderous issue should be the lastof the EG subscription year. It willnot help with renewals,from Jim Vickery, Leeds:

Just a note to say what asplendid achievement EG/34 was -worth the annual subscription initself! It is reassuring to see that'classic' studies are still beingproduced.

20

DIAGRAMS ANDSOLUTIONSeditors: John RoycroftHarold v.d. Heijden

Grigoriev-100 1995-97

This formal international tourneywas judged by Yuri Averbakh andAn.G.Kuznetsov [chief editor andstudies editor of Shakhmaty v Ros-sii]. Set theme: there were twosections -

1) pawns only2) like-piece endings

The provisional award waspublished in Shakhmaty v Rossii11-12/97 and 5-6/98 and signed byboth judges (named in briefpreamble).Remarks: see also UralskyProblemist 14 (1998) pl2 No.4While AJR was suffering visaproblems (on 21vii98 he wasstopped at Sheremetevo-1 passportcontrol and denied entry to Mos-cow from Georgia. The solutiontook time, effort, a miracle, and agreat deal of money - though witha possible insurance claim) prior tothe July 1998 FIDE PCCC, helearned that veteranAn. ('Tolya') Kuznetsov hadrecovered (another miracle) from aburst stomach ulcer and was in toptongue again - the former highlyknowledgable, witty and sarcasticform had returned to the uniquelyexperienced columnist. The newscheered us - and we cheered.

PAWNS-ONLY SECTIONaward in Shakhmaty v Rossii11-12/1997

No 11445 I.Agapov1 st prize Grigoriev-100

g5g8 0000.33 4/4 WinNo 11445 I.Agapov (Izhevsk)l.Kh6/i, with two main lines:

- Kh8 2.e5 Kg8/ii 3.e6 fxe6/iii4.Kg5 Kg7 5.Kf4 Kh6 6.Ke5 Kxh57.Kxe6 Kg4 8.Kxe7/iv Kf5 9.Kd6Ke4 10.Kc5 Kd3 ll.Kb4/v Kc212.Ka3, or (perhaps 'and' is moreappropriate to a study)

- e5 2.Kg5 Kg7 3.Kf5 Kh64.Kxe5/vi Kxh5/vii 5.KT5 (Kf6?Kg4;) Kh4 6.e5 Kg3 7.e6 fxe68.Ke6, followed by9.-1 LKd5-c4-xb3, winning, thanksthis time - see (iv) - to the ratherfine g8-a2 diagonal.i) I.e5? Kg7 2.h6 Kh7, coveringg6. Or I.h6? Kh8 2.e5 Kh7.ii) e6 3.Kg5 Kg7 4.h6 and 5.Kf6,winning.iii) f6 4.Kg6 Kh8 5.Kf7 f5 6.Kxe7f4 7.Kf7 f3 8.e7 f2 9.e8Q+ wins.iv) Now White's is able to chasehis rival off the f8-a3 diagonal.v) "Yet more 'elbowing'!"vi) 4.Kf6? Kxh5 5.Kxf7 Kg5 6.Ke6

21

Kf4 7.Kd5 Ke3 8.Ke5 Kd3 9.Kd5Kc2 10.e5 Kb2 Il.e6 Kc2 12.e7 b213.e8Q blQ, level pegging,vii) Kg5 5.h6 Kg6 6.h7 Kxh77.Kf6 Kg8 8.Ke7 Kg7 9.e5 and10.e6, winning."The natural start position ispeaceful and clear, but it divides atonce into two complex and contras-ting variations, each with its ownsubtleties, sacrifices, pawn marchesand especially king marches, fromwing to wing, h to a and b, until itemerges that the real nugget is theremote P-pair on b2 and b3."

No 11446 B.Sidorov2nd prize Grigoriev-100

h5hl 0000.83 9/4 WinNo 11446 B.Sidorov (Apsheronsk)I.b7/i flS/ii 2.b8B Kg2 3.e8S(e8Q? hlS;) Sg3+ 4.Bxg3 Kxg35.Sg7 hlQ 6.Sf5+ wins, but not6.Kh6? Qxh4+ 7.Sh5 Kg4 8x7Qg5, with at least a draw,i) l.e8Q? flS 2.Qb8 Sg3+ 3.Qxg3stalemate. l.e8S? flQ - 'reversed'promotion sequence!! - 2.e7 Qel3.Sg7/iii Qe7 4.Sf5 (b7,Qf8;) Qe85x7 Kg2 6.b7 Qh8 7.Sh6 hlS winsfor Black,ii) flQ 2.b8Q Kg2 3.Qb2 Kh3/iv

4.Qc3 Kg2 5.Qg7 hlQ 6.Qb2 Kg37.Qe5 Kg2 8.Qe4, with exchangeon hi and then 10.g7, winning,iii) 3.b7? Kg2, and there is noescape from 4...Qxh4+ 5.Kxh4 hlQmate.iv) Qf2 4.Qxf2+ Kxf2 5.e8Q hlQ6.Qf8 Kg3 7.Qa3 Kf2 8.Qb2 Kg39.Qc3 and 10.Kg7 winning."If the first study was pure classic,this is pure romantic." "Themiracle of promotion is especiallyclose to chessplayers' hearts at theturn of the year. Here they pour outfrom Father Christmas' sack ofpresents!"

No 11447 V.Kovalenko

f4d3 0000.33 4/4 WinNo 11447 V.Kovalenko (BolshoiKamen) "After the first two, are wenow back on terra firmal As weshall see, not quite." The author'ssolution: I.f6/i gxf6/ii 2.g4/iiihxg4/iv 3.h4 g3/v 4.Kxg3 Ke4 5.h5Kf5 6.Kh4 Ke6 7.h6 Ke7 8.h7wins.i) LKg5? Ke4. Or I.g4? hxg42.hxg4 f6, drawing,ii) g6 2.Kg5 Ke4 3.Kh6 Kf5 4.Kg7Ke6 5.h4, with the first of severalreci-zugs.

22

iii) 2.h4? f5 3.Kxf5 Ke3 4.g4 hxg45.Kxg4 Ke4 6.h5 f5 7.Kh3 Ke5,and Black catches the train,iv) h4 3.Kf5 Ke3 4.Kxf6 Kf45.Kxf7 Kg3 6.g5 Kxh3 7.g6 Kg28.g7 h3 9.g8Q+, the check doingthe crucial damage,v) Source: "f5 4.h6 (?!sic!) g35.Kg3 Ke3 6.h7 wins", but alas forsoundness, we read in Shakhmaty vRossii v-vi98 p71 that at this point3...f5 can (and should) be played,with: 4.h5 g3 5.KO g2 6.Kxg2 Ke27.h6 f4 8.h7 f3+, and pawnspromote 'at the same time', with adraw the legitimate outcome. Studyeliminated - provisionally awardedthird prize. No other changes to theP-section award.

"These next two are 'special'because they are evolutions ofGrigoriev's ideas, which patentlylive on today!"

No 11448 A.Kuryatnikov andE.Markov ^= 1 st/2nd special prize vGrigorie v-100 ,,$•"

cxb6 (axb6;Kxc7) 2.Kxa7 b5 3.Kb7Kb4 4Kb6 Ka3 (Kc3;Ka5) 5.Kc5Kxb3 (b4;Kc4) 6.Kxb5, and now,with Black to move we continue'according to Grig': Kb2(Kc2)7.Kc6 Kc3 8.Kc5 Kc2(Kd2) 9.Kd6Kd3 10.Kd5 Kd2 (Ke2) ll.Ke6Ke3 12.Ke5, the central position ofreciprocal zugzwang, Kf2 13.Kxf6Kxg2 14.Kg6 Kg3 15.Kg5, andanother pair of heads emerge (cf.move 4): Kf3 16.Kf5, or Kh316.Kxh5. White wins,i) l.Kc6? Kb4. I.g3? Kb5 2.Ka7c-5 3,Kb7 c4. Well, what aboutsnaffling a pawn? l.Kxa7? Kb52.Kb7 c5 3.Kc7 Kb4 (or c4;) 4.Kc6Kxb3 5.Kxc5 Kc3. No, we startinsteasd with disruption of Black'sforces."Now this is interesting! Threeagainst three is a Grigoriev sys-tematic movement."

No 11449 V.Kovalenko= lst/2nd special prizeGrigoriev-100

b7a5 0000.55 6/6 WinNo 11448 A.Kuryatnikov andEvgeny Markov (Saratov) I.b6/i

a3e8 0000.84 9/5 DrawNo 11449 V.Kovalenko l.Kb2,with:

- exd6 2.Kxc2 Kf7 3.Kd3 Kxf64.Ke4/i Ke6 5.Kd4z d5 6.Kc5 Ke5

23

stalemate, or- exf6 2.Kxc2 Kd7 3.Kd3 Kd6

4.Ke4 Ke6 5.Kf4 f5 6.Kg5 Ke5stalemate.i) 4.Kc4? Ke5 5.Kd3 Kd5. Or if4.Kd4? Ke6 5.Ke4 d5 6.Kd4 Kd6,Black winning.

No 11450 A.Kuryatnikov andE.Markov1st honourable mentionGrigoriev-100

g3h8 0000.33 4/4 WinNo 11450 A.Kuryatnikov andE.Markov I.f4/i Kg7 2.KO Kf8(Kh6? g4) 3.Ke4/ii c6 4.Kd4 Ke75.Ke5/iii Kd7 6.g3/iv Kc7 7.g4Kd7 8.g5 fxg5 9.fxg5, with Kc710.g6, or Ke7 10.Kxc6, winning,i) l.Kf2? Kg7 2.f4? see below,ii) 3.Ke3? Ke7 4.Kd4 Kd6, clearingaway the mists,iii) 5.g4? Kd6 and 6...f5.iv) Winning (or losing) the winningtempo. After move 9 it's areciprocal zugzwang."Neat enough."

No 11451 B.Sidorov2nd honourable mentionGrigoriev-100

c8a5 0000.23 3/4 WinNo 11451 B.Sidorov l.Kd8 b5 2x5b4 3.c6, with:

- bxa3 4x7 a2 5x8Q alQ 6.Qc5mate, or

- b3 4x7 b2 5x8Q blQ/i 6.Qc5+Qb5 7.Qc3+ Kb6 8.Qc7 mate.i) This is not check, explaining theavoidance of l.Kb7?"The two mates are pure. A verynice puzzle!"

No 11452 Yu.Lubkincommendation Grigoriev-100

e3c8 0000.55 6/6 WinNo 11452 Yu.Lubkin (Moscow)I.f5 Kd7 2.Kf4 Kd6 3.f6 gxf64.gxf6 Kd7/i 5.Kg4 Kd6 6.h5 Ke67.h6 Kxf6 8.Kh4 g5+ 9.Kh5 g4

24

10.Kxg4 Kg6 Il.h7 Kxh7 12.Kf5Kg7 13.Ke5 Kg6/ii 14.Kxd5 f515.Ke5 KgS 16.d5 f4 17.d6 f318.d7 f2 19.d8Q wins,i) Ke6 5.Kg5 Kd7 6.Kh6 Kd67.Kh7 Kd7 8.Kg8 Ke6 9.Kg7 wins.iij.KfS 14.Kd5 Ke7 15.Kc4 f516.Kxb4 f4 17.Kc3 Kd6 18.Kd3Kd5 19.b4 O 2O.b5 wins.

No 11453 Karen Sumbatyancommendation Grigoriev-100

No 11454 A.Grinspecial mention Grigoriev-100

c5f4 0000.43 5/4 WinNo 11453 Karen Sumbatyan(Moscow) I.f6 gxf6/i 2.Kb4 a33.Kb3/ii Kxf3 4.d4 (h4? Kg4;) Ke45.h4, with:

- f5 6.h5 f4 7.h6 0 8.h7 f2 9.h8QflQ 10.Qe5 Kd3 ll.Qxb5, and12.Qfl, or

- Kd3 6.h5/iii a2 7.Kxa2 Kc28.h6 b4 9.h7 b3 10.Ka3 b2 ll.h8QblQ 12.Qh7 wins.i) a3 2.f7 a2 3.f8Q+, the checkbeing, of course, significant,ii) 3.Kxa3? KxO 4.d4 Ke4 5.h4Kd4 6.h5 Kc3 7.Ka2 Kc2 8.Ka3Kc3 9.h6 b4 10.Ka2 Kc2 draw,iii) 6.d5? a2 7.Ka2 Kc2 draw.

c4b-7 0000.33 4/4 WinNo 11454 A.Grin (Moscow) I.a6+,with:

- Kb6 2.g7 h2 3.g8Q hlQ 4.Qd8mate, or

- Kc7 2.b6+ Kxb6/i 3.g7 h24.g8Q hlQ 5.Qb8+ Kxa6 6.Qb5mate.i) axb6 3.a7 Kb7 4.a8Q+ Kxa85.g7 h2 4.g8Q+ wins.

No 11455 Evgeny MarkovUralsky Problemist (14), 1998

e5f7 0000.78 8/9 WinNo 11455 Evgeny Markov First thewhite king descends: l.Ke4 Kxf6/i2.Ke3 Kxf5 3.Ke2/ii Kf4 4.Kf2Kf5/iii 5.Ke3 Ke5. And now therebegins a systematic movement:6.f4+ Kf5 7.KD Kf6 8.K^4 Ke6

25

9.f5+ Kf6 10.Kf4 Kf7 ll.Ke5 Ke712.f6+ Kf7. We have the startposition minus three of the fourf-pawns. 13.KS Kf8 14.Ke6 Ke815.f7+ Kf8- 16.Kd7 Kxf7 17.Kc8Kd7 18.Kb7(Kb8) Kd8 19.Kxa7Kc8 2O.Ka8, winning, the why andwherefore of 17.Kc8 now beingexplained.i) Kf8 2.f7 Kxf7 3.Ke5 wins.ii) 3.Kf2? Kxf4 puts White intozugzwang.iii) Ke5 5.Ke3 Kf5 6.f4 Kg4 7.Ke4Kxh4 8.KO.This study had been entered, weread, for the Grigoriev MT, butwas unhonoured.

LIKE-PIECES SECTIONaward in Shakhmaty v Rossii

5-6/1998 (ie May-June)24 positions were received,covering all four possible types,allowing the judges to createsub-sections with a prize and anhonourable mention in each.

No 11456 Karen Sumbatyanprize Grigoriev-100 - knight vs.knight [GBR class 0004]

No 11456 Karen Sumbatyan(Moscow) I.e5+/i Kd5/ii 2.Kel/iiig4/iv 3.Kfl/iv g3 4.b6/v Kc6 5.Kg2Sf2 6.Sc5 Kxb6/vi 7.e6 Sg4/vii8.e7 Sf6 9.Sd7+ decides.i) l.Sd4? Sf2 2.Ke3 Sg4 3.Ke2Kc5.ii) Kxe5 2.b6 Kxd6 3.b7. Or Kxe62.b6 g4 (Kd7;e6) 3.b7 g3 4.b8Q g25.g8Q and 6.Qg2. So Black says noto both invitations to capture.iii) 2.b6? Kc6 3.Sc5 Sf4/viii 4.b7Kc7 5.Ke3 Sg6 6.Ke4 g4 7.e6 g38.KO g2 9.Kf2 Kb8 10.Kg2 Sf4+.iv) Sgl 3.Kf2 Sh3+ 4.Kg3 Sgl5.b6 Kc6 6.Sd4 Kb6 7.Kh2, withbS corralled.v) 4.Kg2? Ke6 5.b6 Sf4 6.Kg3Se2, followed by Sd4 8.b7 Sc6,and the b-pawn is held up.vi) Sg4 7.b7 Kc7 8.e6 S- 9.Kg3wins.vii) There is no room on e4!viii) Kb6 4.e6 Kc7 5.e7, a'mini-echo'."Everything is here: an effectiveopening, non-trivial mid-solutionplay incorporating counter-forks bybS and the latter's loss; then there'sthe instructive unhurried whiteplay, compensated, fairy-tale style,by a deflecting fork right at theend. IGM Averbakh to columnist:'your pupil, he's not bad, youknow...'. Columnist: 'We do ourbest'."

d2d6 0004.21 e6h3.b5e4g5 4/3+.

26

No 11457 K.Tarnopolskyhonourable mention Grigoriev-100knight vs. knight [GBR class 0004]

No 11458 D.Pletnevprize Grigoriev-100 - bishop vs.bishop [GBR class 0040]

f8f5 0004.33 5/5 WinNo 11457 K.Tarnopolsky(Moscow) I.g4+/i Kf6/ii 2.b5 Sxf23.b6 Sd3 4.b7 Sc5 5.Se5 Sxb76.Sd7+ wins.i) I.b5? Sxf2 2.b6 Sd3 3.b7 Sc54.b8Q 5.Sd7+.ii) On f4 the king would be sub-jected to a promotion check fromb8, while on g4 the white knight isallowed to cover the (i) line cruciald7 square with tempo - L..Kxg42.Sxe5+. There is also l...Ke42.Sxg5+ Kf4, hoping for 3.Sxe6+?Ke5 4.Ke7 Sxf2 5.b5 Kd5 6.Kd7Sg4 7.b6 Se5, when Black is safe,but 3.b5! Ke5 4.Se4, when Black ispalsied."Columnist to Averbakh: We'veseen this mate. Wasn't it in one ofyour studies?' Reply: 'It was! Butthat was a long time ago, and foranother thing it wasn't quite thesame..."'

d8h4 0040.33 5/5 WinNo 11458 D.Pletnev (Moscow)l.Ke8/i Bxd2 2.e5/ii g4 3.Bd4 Kg54.f6 Kg6 5.Bc5 h5/iii 6.e6 fxe67.f7 Bh6 8.Bf8 Bel 9.Bg7 Ba310.Bb2 Bb4 (Bc5;Bd4) ll.Bc3 Ba312.Bel(Bf2) (for Bh4) Kg513.Ba5(Bb6) g3 14.Bd8+ Kg415.Be7 Bxe7 16.Kxe7 g2 17.f£QglQ 18.Qg8+ and 19.Qxgl wins,i) I.e5? Kg4 2.e6 Ba3/iv 3.e7 Bxe74.Kxe7 Kf5 5.d4 Ke4 6.Kd6 h57.d5 h4 8.Be5 g4 draw,ii) 2.Kf7? Be3 3.f6 g4 4.Be5 h55.Kg6 Bc5 draw.iii) Bc3 6.e6 fxe6 7.f7 Bg7 8.Bd4wins. j

iv) 2...fxe6? 3.fxe6Ba3 4.e7 Bxe75.Kxe7 Kf5 6.d4 Ke4 7.Kxe6 wins."Study-game."

No 11459 A.Kazantsev I.f5/i Bc42.f6/ii g3+ 3.Kxh3 Bfl+ 4.Kxh4 g25.g7 glQ 6.g8Q Qxg8 7,f7 Qxf7(Kxf7;Bb3) 8.Bg6 Qxg6, with apure mirror stalemate,i) l.Be4?g3+2.Khl Ke7 3.KglKf6 4.Klil Bd7 5.Kgl Be8 6.f5Ke5, after which White will either

27

lose his pawns or, just as bad,concede the long diagonal,ii) To prevent 2...Ke7, see (i).Columnist to Averbakh: "Not en-tirely new, but pointed and brisk.And this year Aleksandr Petrovichticks up to 92 on the clock!"No 11459 A.Kazantsevhonourable mention Grigoriev-100bishop vs. bishop [GBR class 0040]

h2e8 0040.23 4/5 Draw

No 11460 Nikolai Ryabininprize Grigoriev-100 - rook vs. rook[GBR class 0400]

d3e8 0400.12 3/4 DrawNo 11460 Nikolai Ryabinin(Zherdevka) l.Kc3/i Ra2 2.Kb4/iiRg2 (g2;Rg3) 3.h5 Kf7 4.h6 Kg8 r5.h7+/iii Kh8 6.Kb3/iv b5 7.Ka3/vb4 8.Kb3 (Kb4? Rgl;) Rgl9.Ka2/vi b3 10.Kb2, and now it is

Black's move, and after g2 ll.Rg3,and the position will be known tochess camp-followers.i) I.h5? g2 2.Rg3 Rb3+. Orl.Rhl? g2 2.Rgl Kf7. But how tochoose between l.Kc4 and l.Kc3 -do they both work? No! l.Kc4? b52.Kc3 Rg2 (Ra2? Kb3) 3.h5 Kf74.h6 Kg8 5.h7 Kh8 6.Kb3 b4, andthe zugzwang sword hangs overWhite's head.ii) The considerations we have seenin (i) also handle 2.Kb3? and2.Kb4?iii) 5.Ka4? Kh7 6.Kb3 Rgl 7.Ka2b5 8.Kb2 b4 9.Ka2 Kg8, and10.Rh4 Kh8 ll.Rb4 Kh7 12.Rh4Rfl 13.Rg4 Rf3, or 10.Rh5 Rflll.Rg5 Rf2 12.Kb3 RO 13.Kb4Kh7 14.Rli5 Rf6 15.RM g2 16.RglRg6 17.Kc3 Kh6 18.Kd3 Kh519.Ke3 Kh4 20.KO Kh3, or10.Ka3 Kh8 ll.Kb2 Rg2 12.KblKh7 13.Kal b3 14.KM Kg815.Rh4 Kh8 16.Rh3 Kh7, andBlack wins every time.iv) Now we have a position ofreciprocal zugzwang in White'sfavour which would not have beenthe case after 2.Kb3?v) 7.Kc3? Ra2 8.Kb3 g2 9.Rg3 Rf2and Kh7;.vi) 9.Kxb4? g2 10.Rg3 Rbl+,while if 9.Kb2? b3, and thezugzwang grips White by the shorthairs."Just as in one of Grigoriev'sanalyses!"

28

No 11461 A.Golubevhonourable mention Grigoriev-lOO- rook vs. rook [GBR class 0400]

a5a8 0400.13 3/5 WinNo 11461 A.Golubev (YurevskayaSloboda, Yaroslav region) "On theattack!" l.Kb6 Rd8 2.Kc7 Rd4 3x4b4 (Rc4;Kb6) 4.Rxh2/i Rd3 5.Rh5c5 6.Rxc5 Ra3 7.Kb6 Kb8 8.Rh5/iiKc8 9x5 Rd3/iii 10x6b3 ll.Ra5Kd8 12x7+ Kd7 13.Kb7 Rc314.Rd5+ Ke6 15.Rd2 wins,i) 4.Rh5? c5 5.Rxc5 Rxc4 6.Rxc4hlQ - 'bPb4!'ii) There are little duals, but whocares?iii) Rc3 10x6 Kd8 11x7 Rxc712.Rh8+, and 13.Rh7, winning."Precise defence and powerfulattack: truly a miracle of rooks intheir natural habitat."

No 11462 V.Kovalenko (BolshoiKamen) l.Qb4+ Kg8 2.h7+ Kh83.Qd4 (Qxb2? Qb7;) Qe8(blQ;Kf7+) 4.Qxb2 Qh5/i 5.Qb8+and mates, thanks to the blockingof the h5 square.i) Kh7 5.Qh2+ Kg8 6.Qg3+ andmate thanks to the blocking of thee8 square."A real windfall!"

No 11462 V.Kovalenkoprize Grigoriev-lOO - queen vs.queen [GBR class 4000]

f6f8 4000.11 3/3 Win

No 11463 A.Golubevhonourable mention Grigoriev-lOOqueen vs. queen [GBR class 4000]

c6h3 4000.24 4/6 WinNo 11463 A.Golubev l.Qgl Qc3+/i2.Kd7 (Kd6? Qb4+;) Qd3+ 3.Ke7Qa3+ 4.Ke8 Kh4 5.Qg3+ Kh56.Qh3+ Kg5 7.f4+ exf4 8.exf4+and 9.Qxa3, with capture of bQ onthe third rank. A vivid throwbackto Leonid Kubbel of the 1920's!i) Kh4 2.Qh2+ followed by ap-check from 13 or f4, dependingon where bK will stand, afterwhich bQ is captured in the secondrank.

29

Aleksandr Kazantsev JubileeTourney

This international formal tourneyusually abbreviated toKazantsev-90JT was judged byA.P.Kazantsev, assisted by OlegPervakov. The award signed byKazantsev, 'high priest of Caissa'.35 entries by 26 composers fromRussia, Georgia and Ukraine, 11published.Text of award (by judge): "Dearfellow study enthusiasts whohonoured my 90th birthday bytaking part in this jubilee tourney.The quality of the entries hasdelighted me. With Oleg PervakovI have selected the 'best of thebest'. They will receive my book asrecompense. It is a matter of pridefor me that we veterans are beingfollowed by such a young bandtaking on ideas that I would neverhave given form to (such asmulti-variation problems and evenbatteries). I think that you are allreal artists labouring unselfishlyand doing what you do becauseyou must. I wish you everysuccess, my friends. Continuue togive pleasure to all lovers of truebeauty!"

No 11464 I.Antipin= 1/3 prize Kazantsev-90JT

b6f4 4013.12 4/5 WinNo 11464 I.Antipin (Krasnodar)l.Bh6+ Ke5/i 2.Kc5 Sb5/ii 3.Qe3Qg4 4.Bg5 b3/iii 5.Kxb5 b2/iv6.Kc5 Qxe4 7.Bf6+ Kf5(Kxf6;Qxe4) 8.Qg5 mate,i) Not falling for either Qxh62.Qd2+ wins bQ, or Kg4 2.Qdl +Kh3 3.Qhl+ Kg4 4.Qg2+ Kh55.Qh3 mate.ii) Qxh6 3.Qd4+ Kf4 4.Qd2+. OrKf6 3.Qd8+ Kf7 4.QfB mate. OrQxe4 3.Qg3+ Kf6 4.Qg7+ Kf55.Qg5 mate. A recurrent theme ofthis study, and one of its attrac-tions, is the epaulette mate by wQ.Then there is Sc2 3.Qd6+ Kxe44.Qf4+ Kd3 5.Qc4 mate - thoughalso 5.Qd2+.iii) Qxe4 5.Bf6+ Kf5 6.Qg5 mate,iv) Qxe4 6.B16+ Kd5 7.Qc5 mate(also 5.Qd2+)."A whole string of epaulette matescontribute to a far from trivialstruggle. The presence of bothqueens and of quiet moves by bothsides are a pleasing surprise."

30

No 11465 Pavel Arestov=1/3 prize Kazantsev-90JT

No 11466 A.Sadykov=1/3 prize Kazantsev-90JT

g5f7 0344.31 6/5.WinNo 11465 Pavel Arestov(Krasnogorsk, Moscow region)I.e6+ Kf8 2.fxe7+ Kxe7/i 3.Kf4+Kd6 4.e7 (Bxd8? Bxd7;) Sg2+5.Ke4/ii Bc6+/iii 6.Kd4 Rxd7/iv7.e8S mate.i) "So there's a menacing whitebattery (K+B) ready for thetouch-paper - but in fact whatWhite has to do first is takeprecautions against a black batterythat is not even yet formed.11

3.Kg6+? Kd6 4.e7 Rxd7 5.e8QRxg7+. Or 3.Kf5(Kg4)+? Kd6 4.e7Bd7+. Or 3.Kh5(Kh6)+? Kd6 4.e7Rh8+. In these lines wK is caughtunawares."ii) 5.KO? Sxh4+. Or 5.Kg-? Rxd76.e8Q Rxg7+.iii) Rxd7 6.e8Q Bc6+ 7.Kf5 (Kd4?Kc7+;) Sxh4+ 8.Kf6, with a pos-sible continuation SO 9.Se6 (forQf8+) Kd5 10.Qh5+, or Kc79.Se6+ Kb6 10.Qb8+ Bb7(Rb7;Qe5) ll.Qf4.iv) Black is prepared for 7.e8Q?Kc7+ 8.Kc3 Rd3+ 9.Kxd3 Bxe8 -batteries! Is that it?

a4d2 0101.33 6/4 DrawNo 11466 A.Sadykov (Asbest,Sverdlovsk region) wK's sadpredicament calls for more thanmere medicament. l.Rd7+ Kcl2.Rdl+ Kxdl 3.Sd5 Kd2 4.Sc3Kxc3 5.c7/i blS/ii 6.c8S Kb27.Sxb6 Sc3+ 8.Kxa5 Kxc2 and9...Sxb5, drawn.i) "By sacrificing both his piecesWhite has prevented a new queenappearing on the board. For if nowblQ 6.c8Q+ Kb2 (Kd2;Qd8+)7.Qh8+ with perpetual check orstalemate. Is Black downhearted?"ii) No! If now 6x8Q+? Kb2, andWhite will lose the ensuing !endgame."A brief duel, but short, sharp andsweet."

No 11467 A.Grin (Moscow) LKf2h4/i 2.g3/ii h3 3.g4 Sxg4, and therest is not new: 4.Kxg2 h2 5.Kg2Ke3 6.Khl KO stalemate.i) Sf5 2.KO Sh4+ 3.K14 Sxg2+4.Kg3 Se3 5.ICh4 draw.ii) 2.g4? Sf7 3.Kg2 Sg5, and it'stime for White to resign."This honour goes uniquely to a

malyutka by the 88-year-oldMoscow professor."No 11467 A.Grinspecial prize Kazantsev-90JT

fid2 0003.11 2/3 Draw

No 11468 Velimir Kalandadzehonourable mentionKazantsev-90JT

a7dl 0200.03 3/4 WinNo 11468 Velimir Kalandadze(Georgia) LRd4+ Kel/i 2.Re4+Kfl 3.Rf4+ Kgl 4.Rg4+ Kfl/ii5.bRf4+ Kel 6.Re4+ Kdl 7.Ra4hlQ 8.Rxa2 Qh7+ 9.Ka8 Qh8+10.Kb7 Qh7+ ll.Kc6 Qhl+ 12.Kb6and wins.i) Kc2 2.bRc4+. Or Ke2 2.Rb2+..ii) "Seeing that gl is taboo to awhite rook, the black king canchange direction..." "But now thewhite rooks swap roles."

No 11469 A.Manyakhinhonourable mentionKazantsev-90JT

a8a3 0030.31 4/3 DrawNo 11469 A.Manyakhin (Lipetsk)Advancing the g-pawn is obvious,but: I.g5? d3 2.g6 d2 3x7 Bxc74.g7 dlQ 5.g8Q Qd7 6.Qg6 Qb57.Ka7 Bb8+ 8.Ka8 Be5 9.Ka7Bd4+ 10.Ka8 Qd5+ ll.Kb8 Qd8+12.Kb7 Qd7+, and Black wins. "Ifonly the O pawn were lifted fromthe board. Eureka!" I.f4 Bd6/i2.g5 d3 3.g6 d2 4.c7/ii Bxc7 5.g7dlQ 6.g8Q Qf3+ 7.Ka7 Qe3+(Qc6;Qgl) 8.Ka8 Qe4+ 9.Ka7Qd4+ 10.Ka8 Qd7 ll.Qg6/iii Qb512.Ka7 Bb8+ 13.Ka8 Bxf4/iv14.Qb6 Qxb6 stalemate,i) Bxf4 2.g5 d3 3.g6 d2 4x7 Bxc75.g7 dlQ 6.g8Q Qf3+ 7.Ka7 Qe3+8.Ka8 Qe4+ 9.Ka7 Qd4+ 10.Ka8Qd7 ll.Qg3+ Bxg3 stalemate,ii) 4.g7? dlQ 5.g8Q Qa4+ 6.Kb7Qb5+ 7.Ka7 Bc5+, and the win isclear.iii) ll.Qgl? Qc8+ 12.Ka7 Qb8+13.Ka6 Qa8+ 14.Kb5 Qa4+ 15.Kc5Qa7+ wins.iv) "Alas, the bishop cannot landon the e.5 square.""A superb study in the logical style.

(M

So why not among the prizes? Thecomposer had already published awin (reversing the colours) thatfeatured in the Richkov andStapanov memorial tourney.11

No 11470 V.Neishtadthonourable mentionKazantsev-90JT

No 11471 Sergei Tkachenkohonourable mentionKazantsev-90JT

blh4 1010.86 11/7 WinNo 11470 V.Neishtadt (Barnaul)l.Qcl d2 2.Qgl/i dlQ+ 3.QxdlglQ 4.Kcl/ii Qxe3+ 5.Kbl Qgl6.Qcl Qdl 7.b8S Qd3+ 8.Kal Qdl9.g6, after which the h6-dldiagonal is open and White wins,i) 2.Qdl? glQ 3.Qxgl dlQ+4.Qxdl. The drawback to 2.Qxd2?will be apparent later,ii) 4.Qcl? Qdl 5.b8S Qd3+ 6.KalQdl 7.Qbl Qd2 8.Qfl Qdl+9.Qxdl stalemate."Once again the logical style, andonce again a meddling white pawnmust be eliminated. It's a pity thecomposer seems unable to tidy uphis settings."

glg4 0013.13 3/5 DrawNo 11471 Sergei Tkachenko(Odessa, Ukraine) l.K£2/i glQ+2.Kxgl Scl (else Kh2) 3.Be6+Kxg3 4.Bc4/ii h2+ 5.Khl h56.Be2/iii h4/iv 7.Bc4, and now thedraw is clear, Kh3 8.Bfl(Be6)+Kg3 9.Bc4.i) LBxa2? Kxg3 mates. Or l.Kh2?KG 2.Bxa2 Kf2.ii) The kernel position. It's Black'smove, his knight is out of range,and his king must guard h2. h55lKhl h4 6.Kgl h2+ 7.Khl Kh38J.Bfl(Be6)+ Kg3 9.Bc4, positionaldraw. This is why Black releaseswK.ii'i) 6.Bd3? Sa2 7.Bg6 Sc3 8.Bc2(Bxh5,Se4;) h4, with mate tofollow.iy) Sa2 7.Bxh5 Sc3 8.BG,controlling both of the invasionpoints dl and e4."A whole series of reci-zugs,though the play is somewhat dry."

33

No 11472 P.Arestovcommendation Kazantsev-90JT

a2cl 0742.11 6/5 WinNo 11472 P.Arestov l.Bg4 Bd6/i2.Sxd6 cRxb6 3.dSc4/ii Rb2+4.Sxb2 Rxb2+ 5.Kal c2/iii 6.Sxc2Rbl+ 7.Ka2 Rb2+ 8.Ka3 Rxc29.Rdl mate.i) c2 2.Sd4, for Sb3. Or Bd22.RJi8 Bel Rhl, winning,ii) 3.Sxb7? Rb2+4.Kal Rbl+5.Sxbl c2.iii) Rbl + 6.Sxbl c2 7.Rb8, therebeing no longer a knight on b7.

No 11473 Yu.Lubkincommendation Kazantsev-90JT

d6f6 3170.11 4/5 DrawNo 11473 Yu.Lubkin (Moscow)I.g5+ Kf7 2.Ra7+ Kg8 3.Ra8+ Be84.Rxe8+ Kf7 5.Re7+ Kg6 6.Rxh7Kxh7 7.Bf8 (Ke6? Bg7;) e3 8.Ke6

e2 9.Kf7 elQ 10.g6+ Kh8 ll.Bg7+Bxg7, with a (known) stalemate.

No 11474 LYarmonovcommendation Kazantsev-90JT

d3d6 0000.68 7/9 WinNo 11474 LYarmonov (Mariupol)l.c8S+ Kc7 2.Ke2 Kxc8 3.Kxf2Kc7 4.Ke2 Kd6 5.Kd3, with a pairof echo-variations:

- a4 6.Kd4 a5 7x5+ Kc6 8.Kc4a6 9.Kd4 Kb5 10.g3/i fxg3/iill.Kd5 and 12x4 mate, or

- Kc5 6.a4 Kc6 7.Kd4 Kd6 8x5+Ke6 9x4 Kd7 10.Kd5 Kc7 11x6Kb6 12.g4 fxg3/iii 13.Kd6 and14x5 mate.i) 10.g4 is also possible, but not10.Kd5 stalemate?ii) Kc6 Il.gxf4 Kb5 12x6 Kxc613x4 Kd6 14x5+ Ke6 15.Kc4wins.iii) Kc7 13.gxf5 Kb6 14x7 Kxc715x5 Kd7 16x6+ Ke7 17.Kc5 Ke81.8.Kd6 wins.

'KoroIkov-90% 1997

This formal international wasjudged by A.Sochnev(St.Petersburg). The provisional

34

award was published in Zadachy ietyudy No. 16, 1998. 32 studieswere published of which 8 werefound defective. "A small entry forsuch a prestigious event but thequality of the remaining 24 washigh enough, so the tourney mustbe called a success. Thecontribution of the St Petersburgcomposers was especially notewor-thy - a fine response to the'jubilee/memorial' tourney of theirfellow citizen. It was likewise apleasure that so many composersentered material in the romanticstyle for which Korolkov was sojustifiably renowned."No 11475 S.Zakharov1st prize Korolkov-90

h8f6 3202.06 5/8 DrawNo 11475 S.Zakharov(St Petersburg) l.cSe4+/i fxe4/ii2.Sxe4+/iii Ke6 3.Sc5+ Kf5 4.Sd3+Kg4 5.Rc4+ Kg3 6.Rg5+ KO7.Rf4+ Ke2 8.Re5+/iv Kd2 9.Rf2+Kc3 10.Rc5+ Kd4/v H.Rf4+Ke312.Re5+ and it's a draw, and afterall that it was clockwise!i) "... neither 1.RJE8+? nor l.Se8+?nor l.Sd7+? nor l.dSe4+? works,and any procrastination would befatal."

ii) Otherwise it's perpetual check.Hi) "It looks as if a [pre-digital!AJR] 'clock' mechanism is or-dained, but if: 2.Rf5+? Ke6 3.Re8+Kcl7 4.Rf7+ Kc6 5.Rc8+ Kd56.Rf5+ Kxd6 (Ke6?) 7.Rd8+ Ke68.Rxdl Kxf5, winning. And it is nobetter in reverse: 2.Rf8+? Ke73.Rb7+ Ke6 4.Re8+ Kd5 5.Rb5+Kxd6 6.Rd8+ Kc6 7.Rxdl Kxb5wins, again taking advantage ofbPe4."iv) "There was a trap in 8.Rf2+?Ke3 9.Re5+ Kd4 10.Rf4+ Kc3ll.Rc5+ Kb3 (Kd2? Rf2+)12.Rb5+ Ka3 wins."v) The supplied line "Kb3 ll.Rb2+

12.Rc3+ Qb3 13.bRxb3+ axb314.Rcl b2 15.Rc3+" is given, but,as Ed points out, 15...Ka4 seems towin."A complex idea, synthesising twowhirligig mechanisms around aloose knight on different sets ofsquares in thematic try and insolution, clockwise andanti-clockwise, all in a free andopen setting. It is non-trivial to siftout the one holding thread in thislabyrinthine solution. An imposingwork by the talented Petersburgcomposer."

No 11476 V.Kondratev (Ivanovskregion) "The material may be level,but with Black threatening glQ+;one wouldn't be in White's shoes."l.c8Q glQ+ 2.Qcl Qg6+/i 3.KalQf6+ 4.Kbl Qf5+ 5.Kal Qe5+6.Kbl Qe2/ii 7.Qa3+ Kxa3 8.f8Q+Sb4 9.QO+ Qxf3 10.Sb5+ Kb3H.Sd4+/iii Kc3 12.Sxf3 a3

35

13.Kal/iv Kc2 14.Sd4+ draws, not14.Sel+? Kb3 15.Kbl a2+ 16.KalKa3 and White will be mated afterall.i) It looks as if a standard staircasemovement will soon win.ii) How is White to save himselfnow?iii) So the queen is won back, butcare is still needed,iv) "Precise to the end!""Classic crystal clarity."

No 11476 V.Kondratev2nd prize Korolkov-90

blb.3 0004.22 4/4 DrawNo 11477 A.Belyavsky3rd prize Korolkov-90

d8e3 0400.11 3/3 WinNo 11477 A.Belyavsky(St Petersburg) "Such an attractiveand natural position from a game!Can it really be a study? Let's see.

After I.d7, the situation is simplythat White must promote his ownpawn or take Black's withoutlosing his own. The play divides:

- Kf4 2.Ra6 Kf5. Active king.Good stuff. 3.Ke7 Re3+ 4.Kf7 Rd35.Ra5+ Kg4 6.Ke7 Re3+ 7.Kf6Rd3 8.Ra4+ Kh5 (Kg3;Rxa3)9.Ke6 Re3+ 10.Kf5 Rd3 ll.Rxa3Rxd7 12.Rh3 mate, or

- Kd2. To support his pawn.Good stuff. 2.Rc6. We'll soon puta stop to that. Rc3 3.Ke8. Not amistake. Rxc6 4.d8Q+ Kc2 5.Qd5Rc8+/i 6.Kd7 (Ke7? Rc7;) Kb27.Qb7+ Kal 8.Qxc8 a2 9.Qclmate.i) Kb2 6.Qb5+ Kal 7.Qc6 a28.Qcl mate. The subtlety ofWhite's move 3 in this line is nowexplained, for 3.Ke7? would allowthe saving 5...Rc7+.An interesting miniature with a pairof contrasting mating variations onopposite sides of the board Theauthor has synthesised anddeveloped a known idea in asimple-looking and compact form.3.Ke8!! is a paradoxical move."No 11478 V.Razumenko4th prize Korolkov-90

g2h6 3013.35 5/8 Win

36

No 11478 V.Razumenko(St Petersburg) "The Petersburgcomposer's favourite material -queens fighting it out, especiallywhen there's a plurality in theoffing - and here with somethingfresh. l.h8Q+/iKg5 2.Qg7+ Kh43.Qf6+ Qg5 4.Qf2+ (f8Q? Sxd3;)g3 5.Qd4+ Qg4 6.f8Q/ii clQ/iii7.Qd8+/iv Qg5 8.Bxe6 alQ/v9.Bxg4 Qxd8 10.Bd7+ Kg5ll.Qg7+ and 12.Qxg3 mate.i) l.f8Q+? Kxh7. The position criesout for immediate action.ii) 6.Qf6+(?) Qg5 7.f8Q clQ8.Qd4+ Qg4 9.Qd8+ Qg5, servesonly to lengthen the solution.iii) Qxd4 7.Qd8+ Kg4 8.Bxe6+.Now we see a second set of queenson the board.iv) 7.fQf6+? Qg5 8.Bxe6 alQ9.Bxg4 Qxf6 and Bd7 is notavailable.v) Qxd8 9.Qxd8+ Qg5 10.Qd4+Qg4 ll.Bxg4."A try, quiet moves, an effectivefinish - and eveything done on abackdrop of multiple majesties.Impressive."No 11479 I.Bondar and V.Bartosh5th prize Korolkov-90

No 11479 I.Bondar and V.Bartosh(Belarus) l.Be4+ Kg8/i 2.Kg4 c2/ii3.Bxc2 Rc3 4.Be4/iii Rxc4 5.KG/ivSak 6.Bd6 Sxc5 7.Bd5 Rc3+ 8.Ke2Sxe6 9.Kd2, domination, and awin.i) Kg7 2.Be5+ Kg8 3.Kg4 Rb24x6 Sa6 5.Bxc3 Rb8 6.Bg6 Ra87.e7 Sc7 8.Be5 Se8 9x7 Rc8lQ.KfS Ra8 ll.Ke6 Ra6+ 12.Kd7wins.ii) Giving up the pawn to createcounterplay.iii) The most precise. 4.Bf5? Rxc4+5.Kg5 Sa6 6.Bd6 Rxc5 7.Kf6 Rd58.e7 Rf5+ 9.Ke6 Sxc7+ draw,iv) 5.Bxb8? Rxe4+ 6.Kf5 Rc47.Bd6 Kg7 and there is no whitewin, for example, 8.Ke5 Rc2 9.Kd5M6 10.e7 Kf7 11x6 Ke8 12.Bb4Re2 13.Kc4 Re6 14.Kb5 Re415.Bc5 Re2 16x7 Kd7."Interesting, well executed, andsubtle, with plenty of blackcounterplay and an unexpectedposition of domination."

No 11480 V.Neishtadt1st honourable mentionRorolkov-90

hlh4 4072.24 7/8 Drawh3h7 0323.31 6/4 Win

37

No 11480 V.Neishtadt (Barnaul)"The position could hardly be shar-per, with strong black threats, soWhite must jump to it." l.Qd8+Kxg4/i 2.Sxd2+ Kh3/ii 3.Sf4+ exf44.Bxc6 Bd5+/iii 5.Bxd5 Be3/iv6.Qxd7+/v Qxd7 7.SO Qg4 8.Be6+Qxe6 9.Sg5+ Kg4 10.Sxe6 f3ll.Sc7, and the final subtletysecures the draw.i) Kh3 2.Sxd2 Bxd5 3.Kxgl Qxg4+4.Kf2 draw.ii) Both sides excel in finding quietmoves.iii) dxc6 5.Qc8+ Kh4 6.Sf3+ and7.Qf5+ draw.iv) Bd4 6Qg8. Bc5 6.Be6+ dxe67.Qd3+. Both are draws,v) A beautiful combinative point.An effective combinational study."

No 11481 N.Kralin andV.Neishtadt2nd honourable mentionKorolkov-90

a2h4 1450.78 12/11 WinNo 11481 N.Kralin andV.Neishtadt (Moscow and Barnaul)"You want romanticism? Here it is.Lg3+ (Bb2? fxg2;) Kh5 (forstalemate) 2.Bb2 b3+ 3.Ka3 Ral+4.Bxal clB+/i 5.Bb2 Bg5/ii

6.Re7/iii fBxe7 7.f£B BxfB8.Bxg6+ wins.i) Making sense of Black's firstmove choice, for if instead: clQ+5.Bb2 Qbl 6.Rxa5 Qa2+ 7.Kb4Qxb2, with hopes resting on bPb3,but now comes 8.Qd8 g5 9.Qd6Qxf2 10.Ra6, and mate isinevitable.ii) Anticipating the chance to play6...Bxc5 7.Qxc5 stalemate.iii) Thematic try: 6.Qxg4+? Kxg47.Rc7 Kh5 8.b6 (Bd7,Bc5;) Be39.Bal Bcl+ 10.Bb2 Be3, withpositional draw based on perpetualthreat to mate.Promotion to bishop by both sides,sacrifices, a thematic try andpositional draw based pereptualmating threat. Known ideas mattedtogether into one by theauthor-team."

No 11482 L.Katsnelson3rd honourable mentionKorolkov-90

e6b8 3110.21 5/3 DrawNo 11482 L.Katsnelson(St Petersburg) "With Blackthreatening Qb2; and c2; this messyposition with White's forces souncoordinated would make any

38

player uneasy. I.a6 Qg6+/i 2.Kd7Qg7+ 3.Kc6 (Kd6? Qxg8;) Qg6+4.Kd7 (Ke5? Qxg8;) Qxg8/ii 5.a7+Ka8 6.b7+ Kxb7 7.a8Q+ Qxa88.Rbl+ Ka6 9.Ral+ Kb7 10.Rbl+Ka7/iii ll.Kc7 (Ral+? Kb8;) Qb8+12.Rxb8 c2 13.Rb7+ Ka8 14.Rb8+,with no alternative to this (third)positional draw.i) Qb3+ 2.Kd7+ Qb5 3.Ke7 draw.ii) Declining the first positionaldraw.iii) Declining the second."Three positional draws followingon in an unconstrained waycomplement sacrifices by bothsides."

No 11483 B.Gusev andK.Sumbatyan4th honourable mentionKorolkov-90

c4h6 0130.14 3/6 DrawNo 11483 B.Gusev andK.Sumbatyan (Moscow) "Anothergame-like [Russian: 'igrovaya'!i.riX'Bj:•'•[] position. Whither awaythe wK? Solving starts with thethematic try: l.Kd4? O 2.Rxc2 f23.Rcl Kg5 4.Rfl/i Kg4 5.Ke3/iiKg3 6.Rxf2 Bgl 7.Kxe4 Kxf28.Kd5 Bh2 9.e4 d6, and Black

wins. l.Kd5! O/iii 2.Rxc2 f23.Rcl Kg5 4.Rfl/iv e3 5.Ke4Kg4/v 6.Kxe3 Kg3/vi 7.Rxf2 Bgl8.Kd4 Kxf2 (Bxf2+;Kd5) 9.e4Bh2(Bd6) 10.e5, managing to blockbPd7 so as to reach a draw,i) 4.Ke3 Bf4+, or 4.Kxe4 Kg4.ii) 5.Rxf2? Bgl, or 5.Kxe4 Kg36.Kd5 Kg2.iii) Kg5 2.Rxc2 Kf5 3.e3 draw,iv) 4.Kxe4? Kg4 5.Kd3 d6 6.e3Kf3 7.Rbl Be5 8.Rdl Bg7 9.RblBh6 10.e4 Bg7 ll.Rfl Kg2 12.Ke2Bd4 13.Rcl Bc3 14.Ke3 Bel15.Rc2 Kgl 16.Rxf2 Bxf2+ 17.Kf4Bd4 winning.v) 5.Bf4? KB, followed by Kg2;,Rdl; and Kfl;.vi) Bgl 7.Ke4 Kg3 8.Kd5 draw."The move selection on the firstmove is most intriguing."

No 11484 S.Berlov andf L.Mitrofanovcommendation Korolkov-90

c8a8 4130.13 4/6 DrawNo 11484 S.Berlov andf L.Mitrofanov (St Petersburg)"Again we start with a thematic try:l.Rg5? Qh3+ 2.Rg4 Qh8 3.Rh4Qc3+? 4.Qxc3 bxc3 5.Rhl Ka7;6.Kc7 Ka6 7.Rel c2 8.Kd6 Kb5

9.Kd5 Kb4 10.Kd4 will draw, butnot if Black chooses 3...Qe5! 4.Kd8Bb5. l.Kc7 Qxel 2.Kb6 Qg33.Rxg3 elQ 4.Rg8 Qg3 5.Rxg3 e26.Rgl b3 7.Kc5/i b2 8.Kd4, with:

- Ba4 9.Kc3, or- Bg6 9.Ke3, draw.

i) 7.Kc.7? b2 8.Rbl Ba4."Nothing very complicated, but anexquisite study in which both sidessacrifice queens and a Reti nuanceas icing on the cake."

No 11485 V.Katsnelsoncommendation Korolkov-90

ble2 0560.21 5/5 DrawNo 11485 V.Katsnelson(St Petersburg) "Black has manythreats, so... I.g3+/i Ke3 2.Rxb2 d23.Rc3/ii, with:

- Kxd4 4.Rxb4+/iii Kxc3 5.Rc4+Kd3 6.Rcl draw, or

- Ke2 4.Rcl/iv Be4+ 5.Ka2 Bd5+6.Kbl Be4+ 7.Ka2 positional draw,i) The reason for not choosingI.g4? will emerge, we promise.ii) 3.Rxb4? dlQ+ 4.Kb2 Qd2+5.Ka3 Bd5 6.Ka4 Kd3 7.Kb5 Qg58.Ka4 Qd8, and Black's attackproceeds apace. We can see nowthe drawback to I.g4+?, as Blackcould now play 3...Kf4 4.Rcl

Be4+. The main line is now at ajunction.iii) 4.Rc4+? Ke5 5.bRxb4 dlQ+6.Kb2 Qd2+ 7.Kbl Bd5 8.Rd4 Qa29.Kcl Bb3 winning.iv) 4.Rxb4? dlQ+ 5.Kb2 Be46.R4b3 Qxd4 7.Ka3 Kd2 8.Rc8Bc2 9.R3c3 Qa4+ 10.Kb2+ Qb4ll.Ka2 Qbl+ wins.

No 11486 A.Kotovcommendation Korolkov-90

c8a8 0400.33 5/5 WinNo 11486 A.Kotov (Prozersk)I.c4/i Ral 2.b6 blQ 3.Rdl d64.Rfl, with:

- Qxfl 5.b7+, or- Qf5+ 5.Rxf5 Rbl 6.Rfl, or- Qb2 5.Rxal Qxal 6.b7+, or- Qxb6 5.Rxal+ Qa7 6.Rxa7+

Kxa7 7.Kc7 wins.i) I.b6? blQ 2x4 Qxb6 3.Ra3+Qa7."Zugzwang in the presence of over-powering black materialsuperiority."

40

No 11487 B.Sidorovspecial prize Korolkov-90for a 'grotesque'

f6d7 3684.36 7/13 DrawNo 11487 B.Sidorov (Apsheronsk)l.Bb5+ Kc8/i 2.Ba6+ Kd8 3.Bc7+Kxe8 4.Bb5+ Kf8 5.Bd6+ Kg86.Bc4+ Kh8 7.Be5/ii Qh2 8.Bal(Bb2? Qb8;) Sg3 9.Be5/iii SfllO.Bal positional draw,i) Kd8 2.Bc7+ Kc8 3.Ba6+ Kd74.Bb5+, with perpetual check,ii) "Setting up a battery with athreat of mate in 1."iii) 9.Bd4? exd3. Or 9.Bb2? Rbl10.Be5 Sfl."The composer also pens a quatrainin memory and honour ofKorolkov:

yy^ec OTKPHJI OH nepBHM,OT ziorMbi H OKOB.

POMaHTHKe OCTaJIbCfl BepHbIMKopOJIb 3TD2LOB - KopOJtbKOB.He held the key where magic liesShunning all dogma and dull eyesLife-long romantic lore was hisKing Korolkov the study whizz."

No 11488 E.Kudelichspecial honourable mentionKorolkov-90

§1§1

g8h6 0333.37 4/11 DrawNo 11488 E.Kudelich (Tyumenregion) l.fBB/i Bc4+ 2.Kh8, with:

- Rb8 3.d8S alQ/ii 4.Sf7+ Bxf7stalemate with wB pinned, or

- Sf5 3.d8S flR/iii 4.Sf7+/iv Bxf75.Bxg7+ Sxg7 stalemate.i) l.d8Q? Bc4 2.Kh8 Bxf7 3.Qf8Rb8 4.Qxb8 alQ 5.Qa7 Qe5 6.Qc7Qd4 7.Qd7 Qf4 8.Qc7 flQ wins.Or l.fBQ? Bc4+ 2.Kh8 Rb8 3.Qxb8alQ 4.d8Q flQ 5.Qg8 Bxg86.Qxg8 Qa8 7.Qxa8 Qf7 wins,ii) Rxd8 is stalemate with wBpinned. Or Sf5 4.Bxg7+ Sxg7stalemate with wS pinned,iii) Rb8 4.Bxg7+ Sxg7 stalematewith wS pinned,iv) 4.Bxg7+? Sxg7 5.Sf7+ Rxf7wins."Four assorted promotions accom-pany stalemates ringing the changeswith the pins."

41

ARTICLESeditor: John Roycroft

The following article by T.Gorgiev(1910-1976) was published inShakhmaty v SSSR 4/1971.

TWO DIRECTIONSThe evolution of the treatment bycomposers of the 'two knightstheme' has been curious. In theearly days fantastic ideas associatedwith winning with the two knightsagainst assorted force provided theprincipal fascination. Quite a fewsuch studies were composed - suchas Gl.

Gl T.Gorgiev 1963

c3d8 0005.11 4/3 WinGl T.Gorgiev Lb7 Sa6 2.Kc4 Kc73.Kb5 Kxb7 4.Sd6+ Kc7 5.dSe8+Kb7 6.Se6 Sb8 7.Sd6+ Ka8 8.Sc7mate.

Endgames with two knights pittedsuccessfully against a pawn thenbegan to attract attention. Thanks toTroitzky's researches into positionswhere the pawn is blocked by a

knight, it was learned when suchpositions could be won.In the studies field two trendsemerged. One was based onpositions where the pawn had al-ready passed the 'Troitzky line' butwhich were still won due to somespecial configuration of the pieces.Troitzky himself contributed to thistrend, along with numerous othercomposers. The trend continues tothis day.The other trend spotlightedpositions where the pawn waswithin the Troitzky line but whereparadoxical ideas might bear fruit.Hidden combinative possibilitiesresulting in a draw were typical.Let us illustrate.

G2 T.Gorgiev, 1960

d5c7 0007.20 4/3 DrawG2 T.Gorgiev White immediatelysacrifices his knight: l.Sc6 Sxc62.a7 - advancing beyond the 'zone'- Sxa7 3.a4 Sc6 4.a5 Sb4+ 5.Kc5Sa6+ 6.Kb5 Kb7 - if bS moves thedrawing zone comes into force, butotherwise it is stalemate.

In G3 we see an effective drawingmanoeuvre.

42

G3 T.Gorgiev, 1962 T.Gorgiev, 1969

d4d7 0006.30 4/3 DrawG3 T.Gorgiev I.g7 Sxg7 2.h5 Sf5+3Ke5 Sh6 4.Kf6 Sf2 5.Kg7 fSg46.Kf8 Sf6, and now not 7.Kg7?fSg8, but e8Q+ 7.Sxe8 stalemate.

A different stalemate idea can beseen in G4, where the first movedoes not exactly leap to the eye.

G4 T.Gorgiev, 1961

d3a8 0006.20 3/3 DrawG4 T.Gorgiev l.Ke4! (Kd4? Sf4;)Sf2+ (Sg5+;Ke5)-.2.Kd5 Se8 3.a4Sd3 4.a5 Sb4+ 5.Kc5 Sa6+ 6.Kb6S8c7, and the stalemate is unex-pected!

In G5 we managed something dif-ferent, namely a positional draw.

e7d3 0046.20 4/4 DrawG5 T.Gorgiev I.g7 Sxg7 2.Bf6 Bh43.Bxh4 Sf5+ 4.Kf6 Sxh4 5.Kg5S4g6/i 6.Kf6/ii Sf4 (for Sd5;)7,Ke5/iii Sg2 8.Kf6 Sh4 9.Kg5 Sg210.KT6 Sf4 H.Ke5, positionaldraw, for if now Sh5 12.Kf5 Kd4 -will this make a difference? -13.Kg5 Sg3 14.Kf6 Sh5+ 15.Kg5Sg7 16.Kf6 Se8+ 17.Ke7 Sc718.Kf6 Se8+ 19.Ke7 Sg7 2O.Kf6,positional draw for the second time,i) Naturally, not the other knight!ii) 6.Kf5? loses a tempo after Kd4;,when bK is that closer to the actionand the P is halted to Black'scrucial advantage,iii) The black threat was Sd5;,taking control of the f6 square. •

The 'Troitzky line' and the contem-porary study \by G.Ya.Slepian \

Barring a trivial oversight by thedefender, two knights with their!king will not checkmate a king onhis own. This fact was known longago, probably right from the begin-nings of chess. But what if we adda pawn to the weaker side? Can an

43

/^crease in the defence armouryalter the outcome? Well, for themost part it can. For there arises anendgame named after Troitzky, oneof the most complex of chess en-dings whose secrets were revealedonly at the start of the 20th cen-tury. As he was the pioneer, AlexeiAlexandrovich Troitzky, a classicof study composing, fully deservesthe eponymous distinction.Troitzky's analyses showed that ifone of the two (white) knightsblocks the (black) pawn which isno farther advanced than a certainrank, then White wins by force.The winning idea is for king andfree-to-roam knight to hem in theblack king to a corner of the board,for which purpose the tied knightalways plays a part. With thisphase complete the hitherto tiedknight moves (thereby releasing thepawn to advance) and runs to theaid of the two main attackers togive checkmate. The liberated pawnmay even promote. Naturally thisdescription of how to win is in bareoutline only, for in practice theprocess is both lengthy and hard, attimes taking over 50 moves.Where must the black pawn be heldup? All depends on the pawn's file- the set of eight files (fourwing-files mirrored) determiningthe contour of the 'Troitzky line'.See 57.Blockade on the Troitzky lineguarantees the win, but it has to beemphasised that passing the linedoes not guarantee the pawn's sidea draw. There are winning positions

beyond. To take one example, if bPis blocked on f4, then for drawingpurposes bK has to reach the hicorner. If, as in S2, this is not pos-sible, then White wins.A natural question arises: can theTroitzky endgame give rise to newideas, original motivations, forstudies? Troitzky himself suppliedthe answer (S3).After: l.Sc7+ Kb8 2.Sb5 Ka83.Scl Bb8 4.Sd3 Bh2 5.Kg2 Bb86.Kh3 Ba7/i 7Sb4(Sf4)/ii Bb88.Sd5 Be5/iii 9.Sxb6+ Kb810.Sd7+, ll.Sxe5 wins,i) bB has no other square - so,domination!ii) As A.Gurvich cogently ob-served: "It's comical and pitiful:White has made seven moves, andBlack only one."iii) Ba7 9.Kg4 Kb8 10.Sf6 Ka8ll.Sd7 Bb8 12.Sxb6 mate.So, domination. But what if Blackhas a knight rather than a bishop?Well, consider S4.LSg3+ Kh2 2.Se4 a4/i 3.Ke2 a3/ii4.Sxa3 Sb2 5.Sc5 a5 6.Sd7/iiiKg3/iv 7.Kd2 Kf4 8.Kc2 Sa49.Kb3, with a (third) win of bSfollowed by win 'per Troitzky'.i) Kh3 3.Ke2, first win of bS(+Troitzky).ii) Sb2 4.Sa3 wins, not 4.Sxb2? a3.iii) To capture bS one must bedevious: 6.Kd2? a4 7,Kc2 Sc48.Sxc4 a3 draw.iv) a4 7.Sb6, with 8.Kd2, 9.Kc2,and capture No.2 (always plus aTroitzky win).The echo feature has always beenprized in studies of the widest

range of style. Here too theTroitzky endgame has offered com-posers significant possibilities. SeeS5.1.RH7+ Kd8 2.Rg7 dSf3+ 3.Kdl/i,with the following twoecho-variations:

- glQ+ 4.Rxgl Sxgl 5.B!!/iiSxd7/iii 6.Kel Sf6 7.Kfl Sh3 8.f4and 9.Kg2, or

- Sh4 4.Rxg2 Sxg2 5.f4!! Sxd76.Ke2 Sf6 7.KO Sh4 8.f5 and9.Kg3.In both these lines wK induces abS to take a pawn,i) 3.Ke2? glQ 4.Rxgl Sxgl+ and5...SO, with a 'Troitzky line' win.ii) 5.f4? Sxd7 6.Kd2 SO+ 7.Ke3Sh2 8.f5 Sf6 and Black wins,seeing that wK's approach to theh8 corner meets 'access denied',iii) Sd3 6.f4 Sf2+ 7.Kd2 Sg48.Kd3 Kxd7 9.Ke4 Ke7 10.Kf5Sf6+ ll.Kg6and 12.f5 with adraw, wK reaching h8 this time.For another example, see S6. Afterl.Qgl+ Ka8 2.Qg8+ Kb7 3.Qd5+,with a pair of independent lines:

- Qxd5 4.exd5 Sc4+ 5.Kxb5Sd6+ 6.Kb4 Sc2+ 7.Kc5 Kc7, or

- Kc7 4.Qc5+ Qc6 5.Qe7+ Kc86.Qf8+ Kb7 7.Qe7(Qf7/Qg7)+Qc7+ 8.Qxc7+ Kxc7 9.Kxb5 aSb310.e5 Sd4+ ll.Kc5 Se6+ 12.Kd5Kd7.Here the blockade of wP on theTroitzky line leads to a pair ofchameleon echo stalemates!The S6 pure stalemate in the centreof the board can serve as a motiffor a try (see S7). Here White'splan is to make the aP cost Black

his rook. LdSf7+ Kf4/i 2.a7Rc2+/ii 3.Kgl/iii Rcl+ 4.Kf2 Ral5a8Q Rxa8 6.Bxa8 Be4 7.Bxe4/ivf5/v 8.Sg5!! fxe4 9.SH3+ Ke510.Sg4+ and ll.Se3, blockadingbP on the Troitzky line. \i) There is no hope in: Bxf72.Sxf7+ Kg6 3.Sd6 Rh8+ 4.Kgl.ii) If Be4 3.Bxe4 Kxe4 4.Sd6+ and5.Sxc8.iii) No way 3.Kh3? Rc3+ 4.Kh4Rc2 5.Sg4 Ra2 6.a8Q Rxa8 7.Bxa8Bxf7 draw. It is at this moment thatthe difference between l.dSf7+!and LhSf7+? becomes apparent: ifnow 4...Rc2+ there is 5.Kel! Ke36.Sg4+ and 7.a8Q.iv) In the hope of reaching a stan-dard Troitzky endgame after7...Kxe4 8.Sd6+and 9.Sf5.v) Black is stalemated after any ;move by wB! If 8.Sg4? fxe4 9.Se3,stalemate again, despite the'Troitzky' material. Ivi) There is an easy win after Kxg5

Without reservation we can agreewith the judge's opinion, namelythat "this study would grace anytourney". Naturally the honour ;bestowed on this study fails toreflect its high quality and thejudge's reasoning (which can be ;read in Shakhmatnaya kompozitsia22 of 1998) lacks conviction. ;Finally, S8, a 'baby' (malyutka).LSc6 f5 2Kg8!!/i U 3.Sg4 Kd74.cSe5+ Ke6 5.SO Kf5 6.SO,winning, bK's way to hi being ;barred. ;

i) At first sight it is odd to lose atempo, disregarding the pawn's ;

45

advance to the Troitzky line. Butcf. 2.Sd5?, when there follows Kd73.Sd4 f4 4.SO Ke6 5.Sf6 Kf5 andreciprocal zugzwang. All that is leftis to play 6.Kf7, when Black isstalemated. This is distinct from S6and S7, but still stalemate in themiddle of the board.In such a short article it is no easytask to exhaust all significantthemes. One has only to list thepositional draw, the synthesis ofpositional draw with stalemate,underpromotion... However, studiesillustrating these themes alreadyexist either with the Troitzkymaterial per se, or in associationwith the Troitzky line. So we hopethe reader will agree that theTroitzky ending is established as afeature of the study today - afeature with a big future and hol-ding promise of creative dis-coveries.SI

S2

b7c5 0002.01 3/2.

S3 A.Troitzky and M.Aizenshtadt=4/5th pr Shakhmaty v SSSR 1940

Da8 0032.02S4 G.Slepian2nd HM Kasparyan MT 1996

3/4 Win

flhl 0005.02 3/4 Win

46

S5 S.Belokon1st prize, 3rd Birnov MT, 1977

ele7 0106.21 4/4 WinS6 G.Slepian [EG/17.9951]1st HM Kutna Hora 60AT 1994

a5a7 4006.11 3/5 Win

S7 V.Tarasiuk and S.Tkachenkospecial prize, Shakhmatnayakompozitsia 1997

S8 G.Slepian1st prize, Selivanov 30JT('malyutka' section) 1997

g7e8 0002.01

Minsk, il999

3/2 Win

See also, for example, Tkachenko'sEG129.11033. ;

DECISIVE MOVES BY THEQUEEN

The pathos of unexpected, evenself-sacrificing, moves of thequeen, the chessboard's mightiestpiece, makes such a strong animpression on the chessplayer,stirring his imaginative roots, in-cisively bringing to the surface hissense of beauty and truth. Study1

composers in particular are foreverdirecting their attention to thishighly interesting theme, havingdelivered many a memorablemanifestation.

h2g5 0342.1 5/4 Win

47

Ml L.Mitrofanov1st prize, Rustaveli MT, 1967

a5a7 0036.51 6/5 WinThere is no way (in Ml) to bringbPh2, about to promote, up short.So White, losing no time, takesadvantage of bK's vulnerability.

I.b6+ Ka8 2.g7 hlQ.2...Sc4+ 3.Kb5 hlQ 4.g8Q+ Bb85.a7 Sa3+ 6.Kc6 Qh2 7.axb8Q+Qxb8 8.b7+ Ka7 9.Qgl+ Ka610.Qb6 mate. If, in this, 5...Qh26.Qxb8+ Qxb8 7.axb8Q+ Kxb88.Kxc4, then the three white pawnsare more than a match for bS.

3.g8Q+ Bb8 4.a7 Sc6+!The only, and on the face of itadequate, defence, opening up wKto checks from bQ. But the combatis just reaching its climax.

5.dxc6 Qh5+ 6.Qg5!!Quite unexpected! What lies behindthis eye-opening Q-sacrifice is theneed to switch the powerful bQ toa square of a different colour. Themove gives Black no choice. [Butwhen did you last refuse to take aqueen placed en prise?]

6...Qxg5+ 7.Ka6 Bxa7.The return sacrifice of the queenfails: 7...Qb5+ 8.Kxb5 Bxa7 9x7!Kb7 10.bxa7, and White wins.

8.c7!, and wins.Just a pair of pawns against queenand two minor pieces! A rareposition indeed, in which Blackcannot simultaneously ward offboth the threats: 9.b7 mate and9x8Q+. Note, though, that if Blackdid not still possess a knight thenhe could indeed draw by 8...Qa5+!9.Kxa5 Bxb6+! 10.Kxb6 stalemate.

M2 A.Manyakhin2nd prize, Sovetskoe zaurale, 1985

blgl 4030.20 4/3 BTM, DrawHow is White to save himself inM2, seeing that he is about to suf-fer a discovered check?

1... Ba3+ 2.Kc2! Qc4+3.Kd2 Bcl+ 4.Kdl Bf4!There is now the threat to play5...Qcl+ or 5...Qc3+ with matenext move. Must White surrender?No!

5.Qhl+!!Brilliant! This queen sacrifice,absolutely germane to our theme, ata blow destroys the mating net thatensnares wK. Note that 5.Qg2+? isa mistake: 5...Kxg2 6.a8Q+ Kf2,and Black's threats overwhelm.

5...Kxhl 6.a8Q+ Kgl7.Qhl+!!

48

A repeated, or echo, sacrifice of thequeen, underscoring the first. Oncemore bK must step outside themating arena.

7...Kxhl 8.d8Q Kgl.Now follows the culminating queensacrifice, the third such, disclosingthe whole combination's rationale.

9.Qb6+ Kfl 10.Qf2+!! Kxf2stalemate.In M3 we see another case ofechoed queen sacrifices.

M3 A.Manyakhincommendation Olympiev-60JT1997

g8hl 0033.21 3/4 Draw

I.a7 elQ 2.axb8Q Qe6+3.Kg7 Qf7+ 4.Kh6 Qh7+ 5.Kg5Qh5+ 6.Kf6.6.Kf4 would lose out to 6...Qh2+.

6...Qf5+ 7.Kg7.It's not alll that simple, for itwould be very easy to fall for7.Ke7? Qf7+ 8.Kd8 Qe8+ 9.Kc7Qe5+ 10.Kc8 Bf5+, and it's allover.

7...Qf7+ 8.Kh6 Qf6.Black is, naturally enough, notcontent to draw by perpetual check.Instead, he prefers to browbeat his

opponent with zugzwang. Withuntamed queens roaming the boardWhite is ready with a sacrificialcombination.

9.Qh2+!! Kxh2 10.b8Q+Khl ll.Qh2+ stalemate.

M4 A.Manyakhin3rd prize, Buletin Problemistic

(Romania), 1997

g8b8 4010.03 3/5 Win

In M4 White cannot sit back andthink.

l.Qb5+ Kc7 2.Qc5+ Kd73.Bc8+ Kd8 4.Bf5!

Although it's Black's turn to move,there is nothing obvious that he cando. In response to the whitebishop's spot-on move he finds aright cascade of sacrifices - just asin M2, but this time with coloursreversed.

4...QH8+ 5.Kxh8 alQ+6.Kg8 Qh8+.After 6...Qa6 7.Kf7 Qg6+ 8.Kxg6dlQ 9.Kf6 Qal+ 10.Kf7 Qa2+ll.KfB Qe6 12.Qa5+, Black's gameis beyond recall.

7.Kxh8 dlQ 8.Kg8 Qd7.Another queen sacrifice, this timeangling for: 9.Bxd7? flQ 10.Bf5

49

Qa6! ll.Kf7 Qa7+ 12.Qxa7stalemate. Despite this line allBlack's exertions are things of thepast and the end is no longer indoubt.

9.Qa5+! Ke7 10.Qe5+ Kd8ll.Qb8+ Ke7 12.Qf8 mate.

White has surmounted the hazardsof the tempting try (the teasingcapture on d7), by handing outcheckmate. Black's sacrifices werein vain.This small selection of examples onthe attention-grabbing theme of ourheadline can be rounded off withan as yet unpublished study sub-mitted for the tourney com-memorating 80 years since the birthof the late FIDE InternationalMaster of Composition AlekseyGrigoryevich Kopnin (1918-1991).

M5 A.Manyakhinentered for Kopnin-80MT, 1997

h3el 3230.10 4/3 Draw

In M5 wK is poorly protected.Immediate promotion will fail:l.fBQ? Qd7+! 2.Kg2 Qg4+ 3.KhlBB+ 4.QxO Qxf3+ 5.Rg2 Kfl6.Rg6 Qh5+ wins. White resorts toa sacrifice.

l.Re2+! Bxe2 2.f8Q.The mighty queen's delayedentrance does not prevent Blackfrom tightening the screw.

2...QH1+ 3.Kg3 Qgl+4.Kh3 Qg4+ 5.Kh2 Bf3!

A refurbishment has restored themating net encircling the whiteleader. Is there a way out?

6.Re6+!The only effective resource, andwell calculated. Not 6.Qe7+? Kfl,nor 6.Qe8+? Be4!, when Black cantrumpet his victory.

6...Kfl 7.Rel+!The other rook offers himself. Ifthe sacrifice is declined the draw isplain.

7...Kxel 8.Qe7+! Kfl9.Qel+!!Yes! The queen makes the movethat is decisive!

9...Kxel stalemateOne's confidence is firm, quitefirm, that the search for new waysof expressing this theme will leadto further, and no less beautiful,gems of discovery.Aleksandr ManyakhinLipetsk, Russia15xiil998

NEW IDEAS ON THEDOMINATION THEME

It is thanks to the computer that wehave the fundamental proof thattwo bishops 'always1 win against aknight.Now the great French composerHenri Rinck looked into all pos-sible distributions of force, with the

50

exception of these two: two bishopsagainst rook and knight (GBR class0161.00), and two bishops againstrook and two knights (GBR class0162.00). Here is an example ofeach of these two classes.Bl I.Bondarcommendation, Shakhmatnaya

kompozitsia 1995

gle8 0454.00 5/4 Winl.Bb2 Rxe3 2.Rg8+ (for Rxc8)Kd7 3.Bf5+ Se6 (Re6;Ba3) 4.Rxc8Kxc8 5.Kxf2. Domination! Havingwon the rook White wins with twobishops against knight.The same general idea can be seenin refined form in B2, another'aristocratic' (ie, no pawns) study,this time by D.Petrov.B2 D.Petrov1st prize, Chigorin MT, 1959

l.Rd5+ Kg4 2Bb3 Rb4 3.Rd4+Rxd4 4.Be7. Domination! 4...Rf45.Be6+ Kg3 6.Bd6+ wins.My own efforts to create a studywhere the bishop pair wins againstrook and two knights came tonothing when Genius-2 tested themand always discovered duals! :Despite my failure I hope that thisparticular unploughed studiescornfield will find an inventiveowner to exploit it.

I.BondarBelarus1999

e3f5 0423.00 4/3 Win

COMPUTERSECTIONeditor: John Roy croft

*C* GBR class 0039 (111)The Stiller/Elkies partnership hasreleased (for EG) the uniquemaximum length (92 moves, to ;conversion) won position and op-timal play in the 6-man endgame;three knights against bishop. Seeingthat in the starting position three ofthe four white men occupy cornersquares and Black is under no iconstraints - an impression con-firmed by the play, where Blackhas the initiative most of the time -this is prima facie strong evidencethat this material is a general win.If so, then Ivan Bondar is justifiedin basing studies on this result. But'theory' in the shape of the '•agreement of more than one in-dependent authority is still lacking.

An as yet unresolved argument'against' is that the bishop is notready to give check, so that thewhole family of positions (50%?)where the bishop is ready to givecheck remains unresolved. Perhapsalso, positions where wK is initiallyadjacent to a corner square ratherthan occupying it needexamination.[An objection sometimes made tothe GBR code is that it fails toallow for promoted force, such asin the instance under discussion. Tomeet this objection we now proposethe introduction of a pair (or pairs)of brackets following the code - or,in the extended GBR code,preceding the relevant sub-list ofsquares. A repeated digit ' 1' showsthe number of white pieces (of thetype), and a repeated ' 3 ' the num-ber of black. This expansion of theconvention preserves the compactand powerful 4-digit representation(of orthodox chess force). AJR]

alc2 0039 (111) 4/2 Winwith optimal play White wins in 92movesIn the following play unique win-ning moves (for example, l.Sc5 is

clearly unique) are not indicatedbecause the computer did not sup-ply them, any more than it markedreci-zugs. However, equi-optimalsare listed. The metric is to conver-sion, not to checkmate, as is shownby the pair of equi-optimals onmove 91.1 Sb3-c5 Kc2-c3 2 Shl-f2 Kc3-d43 Sc5-a6 Bg8-c4 4 Sa6-b4 Kd4-c35 Sb4-c6 Bc4-d5 6 Sc6-a7 Kc3-c47 Sa7-c8 Kc4-d4 8 Sh8-g6 Bd5-e49 Sg6-fB Kd4-d5 10 Sc8-b6+Kd5-c6 11 Sb6-c4 Kc6-d5 (Kc6-c5)12 Sc4-e3+ Kd5-d4 13 Se3-g4Be4-f5 14 Sg4-f6 Kd4-e515 Sf6-e8 Bf5-c2 16 Sf2-g4+Ke5-f4 17 Sg4-f6 Bc2-a418 Se8-g7 Kf4-e5 19 Sf6-h5Ke5-d6 20 Sf8-g6 Ba4-c221 Sg6-f4 Bc2-b3 22 Sg7-f5+(Sh5-g3) Kd6-e5 23 Sf5-g3 Bb3-f724 Sf4-d3+ Ke5-d4 25 Sh5-f4Bf7-c4 26 Sd3-cl Kd4-e327 Sf4-h5 Bc4-f7 28 Sh5-f6 Bf7-c429 Sg3-f5+ Ke3-f4 30 Sf5-d6Kf4-e5 31 Sf6-e8 Bc4-e632 Scl-d3+ Ke5-d4 33 Sd3-f2Kd4-e5 34 Sd6-e4 Be6-d735 Se8-c7 Ke5-d4 36 Se4-f6Kd4-e5 37 Sf6-h5 Bd7-e638 Sh5-g3 Be6-c4 39 Sg3-e4Ke5-d4 40 Se4-d6 Kd4-c541 Sc7-e8 Bc4-b5 42 Sd6-e4+Kc5-d4 43 Se8-d6 Bb5-c644 Sd6-f5+ (Se4-g3) Kd4-e545 Se4-g3 Bc6-b5 46 Sf5-e7Ke5-f6 47 Se7-d5+ Kf6-e548 Sd5-c3 Bb5-d3 49 Kal-b2Ke5-f4 50 Sg3-h5+ Kf4-g551 Sh5-g7 Kg5-f6 52 Sg7-e8+Kf6-e7 53 Se8-c7 Bd3-c4

52

54 Sc7-a8 Ke7-d6 55 Sa8-b6Kd6-c5 56 Sb6-c8 Bc4-e6 (Kc5-d4)57 Sc8-e7 Kc5-d6 (Kc5-d4)58 Se7-g6Be6-f7 59 Sg6-f4(Sg6-h4) Kd6-e5 (Bf7-g8 Bf7-c4)60 Sf2-d3+ Ke5-f6 (Ke5-f5)61 Kb2-cl (Sc3-e4+ Sf4-g2)Bf7-g6 62 Sd3-f2 Kf6-g5 (Kf6-f5)63 Sf2-h3+ (Sf4-h3+ Sf4-g2)Kg5-f6 (Kg5-f5) 64 Kcl-d2 Bg6-e8(Bg6-f5) 65 Sc3-e4+ (Kd2-e3Sh3-f2) Kf6-g7 66 Kd2-e3 (Kd2-c3Se4-g3 Sf4-e6+ Sh3-f2) Be8-d7(Be8-c6) 67 Sh3-g5 (Sh3-f2)Bd7-f5 68 Se4-g3 (Se4-c5 Se4-c3Se4-d2) Kg7-f6 69 Sg5-f3 Bf5-g6(Bf5-h7 Bf5-c2 Bf5-bl) 70 Ke3-d4(Sf4-d5) Bg6-c2 (Bg6-bl)71 Kd4-d5 (Sf4-d5) Bc2-g6(Bc2-h7 Bc2-bl Kf6-e7) 72 Kd5-d6(Sf3-d4) Bg6-e4 73 Sf3-d4 Be4-g6(Be4-h7 Be4-bl) 74 Sf4-d5+Kf6-g5 75 Kd6-e5 Kg5-g4 (Bg6-h7Bg6-d3 Bg6-bl) 76 Sg3-e2 Kg4-g577 Sd5-e3 (Se2-f4 Se2-c3) Bg6-h578 Sd4-e6+ (Se2-g3 Se2-f4 Se2-c3)Kg5-h4 79 Se3-f5+ Kh4-g480 Se2-f4 Bh5-e8

« m

m wm. m,

e5g4 0039.00 (11 im-position after 81.Sf4-d581 Sf4-d5 Kg4-h3 82 Sd5-e3

BTM

(Se6-d4) Kh3-h2 83 Sf5-d6 Be8-g6!84 Ke5-f4 Kh2-h3 85 Sd6-b5Bg6-e8 (Bg6-d3 Bg6-bl Kh3-h4 |Kh3-h2) 86 Sb5-d4 (Se6-g5) jBe8-h5 (Kh3-h2) 87 Se6-g7(Se6-g5) Bh5-f7 88 Sd4-O Bf7-g8 \(Bf7-b3 Bf7-a2) 89 Sg7-e8 (Sg7-f5;Sg7-h5) Bg8-b3 (Bg8-a2) |90 Se8-d6 (Se8-f6) Bb3-e6 (Bb3-f7Bb3-g8 Bb3-a4 Bb3-a2) 91 Sd6-e4|(SG-g5+). |We are informed that this material!has 1050 distinct positions of ;mutual zugzwang. I

*C* GBR class 0503 !The Stiller/Elkies axis has been at;work again. The results we give jwere extracted by the computer injJuly 1992 but are published here |for the first time. The maximal \length of a win is 73 moves (to |conversion), and the mutual zug- jwangs total 705. There is one othermaximum length win position. j• * c * - ; ! •

a3c2 0503.00 3/3 Winwith optimal play White wins in 173moves ;The play seems of less interest hkethan that in 0039 because it ;depends on the knight being per-|

53

rrianently severed from its king,allowing White to work withthreats against it and against bKgradually to improve his position.Nevertheless, clues to indicate thatWhite is making progress rathergoing round in circles are elusive!1 Rb4-c4+ Kc2-d2 2 Rb5-e5Se7-g6 3 Re5-e6 Sg6-fB 4 Re6-b6Rhl-h7 5 Ka3-b2 Rh7-d76 Rc4-h4Rd7-h7 7 Rh4-e4 Rh7-d7 8 Kb2-a2Rd7-f7 9 Re4-h4 Kd2-e3 (Kd2-e2)10 Rb6-b3+ Ke3-f2 11 Rh4-h2+Kf2-gl 12 Rb3-b2 Rf7-f613 Rh2-g2+ Kgl-fl 14 Rg2-c2Kfl-gl 15 Rb2-bl+Rf6-fl16Rbl-b6Rfl-el (Sf$-d7)17 Rb6-f6 Re 1 -f 1 18 Rf6-h6SfB-d7 19Rh6-h2 Rfl-el20 Rc2-g2+ Kgl-fl 21 Rg2-f2+Kfl-gl 22 Rh2-g2+ Kgl-hl23 Rg2-g5 Sd7-e5 24 Rf2-fBRel-e2+ 25 Ka2-al Se5-c426 RfB-h8+ Re2-h2 27 Rh8-g8Rh2-h4 28 Rg5-gl+ Khl-h229 Rg8-g2+ Kh2-h3 30 Rg2-g3+Kh3-h2 31 Rgl-g2+ Kh2-hl32 Rg2-e2 Rh4-d4 33 Rg3-c3Rd4-dl+ 34 Kal-a2 Sc4-d635 Rc3-c5 Khl-gl 36 Ka2-b2Kgl-fl 37 Re2-e6 Kfl-g2 (Kfl-f2)38 Kb2-c2 Rdl-d4 39 Kc2-c3Rd4-dl 40 Rc5-e5 Kg2-f3(Kg2-g3) 41 Re6-f6+ Kf3-g442 Rf6-f2 Rdl-cl+ 43 Kc3-d4Rcl-c7 44 Kd4-d5 Sd6-f745 Re5-el Kg4-g3 46 Rf2-f6Rc7-a7 47 Rel-gl+Kg3-h448 Rf6-f2 Ra7-a5+ (Sf7-g5)49 Kd5-c4 Si7-g5 50 Rf2-h2+Sg5-h3 51 Rgl-g8 Ra5-a352 Rg8-h8+ Kh4-g4 53 Rh2-g2+

Kg4-f5 54 Rh8-fB+ Kf5-e655 Kc4-b4 (Rg2-e2) Ra3-d356 Rg2-e2+ Ke6-d7 57 Rf8-f5Rd3-g3 58 Rf5-d5+ Kd7-c659 Rd5-d4 Rg3-g6 60 Re2-h2Sh3-gl 61 Rd4-d3 (Rh2-c2)Rg6-g5 (Rg6-g4) 62 Rd3-c3+(Rh2-h6 Rh2-c2) Kc6-d7 (Ke6-b6)63 Rh2-h6 (Rh2-h7) Rg5-g8(Rg5-g4) 64 Rc3-a3 Kd7-c765 Ra3-a7+ Kc7-b8 66 Ra7-e7(Ra7-f7) Kb8-c8 (Sgl-f3 Rg8-f8)67 Kb4-c5 (Kb4-a5 Kb4-b5) Sgl-f368 Kc5-b6 Sf3-d4 69 Re7-b7Rg8-fB 70 Kb6-a7 RfB-e871 Ka7-a8 (Rh6-f6) Kc8-d8(Sd4-f5 Sd4-f3 Sd4-e6 Sd4-c2Sd4-e2 Re8-f8 Re8-g8 Re8-e6Re8-e5 Re8-e4 Re8-e3 Re8-e2Re8-el Re8-d8) 72 Rh6-d6+.

From computer work actually per-formed in 1992 the renownedStiller/Elkies stable offers orie ofthe three maximum length (64moves - to conversion) playpositions in the 6-man endgamethree rooks against the queen.

elc2 3900.00 (111) 4/2 Win1 Kel-fl Qe4-d3+ (Qe4-f4+)

54

2 Kfl-gl Qd3-d4+ 3 Kgl-h2(Kgl-hl) Qd4-h4+ 4 Kh2-g2Qh4-e4+ 5 Kg2-h3 Qe4-e6+6 Kh3-h2 Qe6-d6+ 7 Kh2-hlQd6-h6+ 8 Khl-gl Qh6-e3+(Qh6-cl+) 9 Kgl-h2 Qe3-f4+(Qe3-h6+) 10 Kh2-h3 Qf4-f3+11 Kh3-h4 Qf3-f4+ 12 Kh4-h5Qf4-h2+ 13 Kh5-g4 Qh2-g2+(Qh2-e2+) 14 Kg4-f5 Qg2-f3+15 Kf5-g6 Qf3-c6+ 16 Kg6-g5Qc6-g2+ 17 Kg5-h6 Qg2-h2+18 Ra5-h5 Qh2-f4+ 19 Rh5-g5Qf4-d6+ (Qf4-h2+) 20 Kh6-h5Qd6-h2+ 21 Kh5-g4 Qh2-gl+22 Kg4-f4 Qgl-d4+ 23 Kf4-f3Qd4-d3+ 24 Kf3-g2 Qd3-e4+25 Kg2-g3 Qe4-el+ 26 Kg3-f4Qel-f2+ (Qel-d2+) 27 Kf4-e4Qf2-e2+ 28 Ke4-d5 (Ke4-d4)Qe2-f3+ 29 Kd5-c5 Qf3-c3+30 Kc5-b6 Qc3-b3+ 31 Kb6-c6Qb3-f3+ 32 Rg5-d5 Qf3-f6+33 Rd5-d6 Qf6-D+ 34 Kc6-c5Qf3-c3+ (Qf3-a3+) 35 Kc5-d5Qc3-d3+ (Qc3-f3+) 36 Kd5-e6Qd3-e4+ 37 Ke6-d7 Qe4-f5+38 Rd6-e6 Qf5-d5+ 39 Kd7-e7Qd5-c5+ 40 Ke7-f6 Qc5-f2+(Qc5-c3+) 41 Kf6-e5 Qf2-e3+42 Ke5-d6 Qe3-d4+ 43 Kd6-c7Qd4-f4+ 44 Kc7-d7 Qf4-f7+45 Kd7-d6 Qf7-f4+ 46 Kd6-d5(Re6-e5) Qf4-f5+ 47 Re6-e5Qf5-d7+ (Qf5-D+) 48 Kd5-c4Qd7-d3+ 49 Kc4-c5 Qd3-c3+50 Kc5-d6 Qc3-d4+ 51 Kd6-e6Qd4-c4+ 52 Re5-d5 Qc4-c6+(Qc4-e4+) 53 Ke6-e5 Qc6-c7+

54 Rd5-d6 Qc7-e7+ (Qc7-c5+)55 Ke5-d5 Qe7-f7+ 56 Kd5-c5Qf7-f2+ 57 Rd6-d4 Kc2-c3

58 Rb8-d8 (Rg8-d8) Qf2-e3(Qf2-f5+) 59 Rd8-d6 (Rg8-g6Rg8-g2) Qe3-f2 60 Rg8-g5 Qf2-e361 Rg5-g2 Qe3-e5+ 62 Rd4-d5Qe5-e3 63 Kc5-b5 Qe3-e8+(Kc3-b3 Qe3-e4 Qe3-f3 Qe3-h3)64 Rd6-c6+.

SNIPPETMarco Campioli writes that he"possesses the chess-playingprograms: FRITZ5, FRITZ5.32,MCHESS7.0, CHESS GENIUSGOLD and REBEL 10." He cannotcomment on other programs. Hecontinues: "From the standpoint ofthe composer and tester of studiesFRITZ5 and FRITZ5.32 aresuperior because they deliver in asingle run different lines of play.The identification of 'waste oftime', in particular, appears to beinfallible, as is the identification of(white) inversion of move order."To achieve the same result withthe three other programs requiresanalysis of moves which may notbe the 'best', and some humaninterpretation as well."Organised output we have seenfrom Marco comes via theChess Base medium.

FIDE ALBUM 1995-97 SelectionTourney, mini-report from SectionDirector - Studies (AJR)87 batches have been received:JohAf [23] Batch No. 1AmAv [2] Batch No.2FGen [2] Batch No.3LKek [2] Batch No.4GrSl [15] Batch No.5

55

PGyar [4] Batch No.6GhUm [1] Batch No.7FeJo [3] Batch No.8NiMi [4] Batch No.9VaKal [9] Batch No. 10Allvlan [3] Batch No. 11Vlas [3] Batch No. 12EdvE [1] Batch No. 13Step [3] Batch No. 14YeHo [2] Batch No. 15NiRya [7] Batch No. 16IgnVan [10] Batch No. 17EdEil [1] Batch No. 18SNTk [34] Batch No. 19GaCo [2] Batch No.20SAbr [8] Batch No.21PAre [13] Batch No.22MiHl [16] Batch No.23PiRo [1] Batch No.24AViso [1] Batch No. 25JorPit [3] Batch No.26PBen [3] Batch No.27SerOs [12] Batch No.28ViVin [9] Batch No.29ViRaz [5] Batch No.30RaKhat [5] Batch No.31AlPal [2] Batch No.32GaCo [1] Batch No.33Edlr [16] Batch No.34HiAl [12] Batch No.35AndJa [5] Batch No.36AlHil [3] Batch No.37Dmlof [5] Batch No.38MirMar [2] Batch No.39AndSel [10] Batch No.40IvBo [9] Batch No.41WoMe [2] Batch No.42ReHei [2] Batch No.43IvBon [2] Batch No.44SvJan [1] Batch No.45RPie [1] Batch No.46EmDob [8] Batch No.47

EmMe [3] Batch No.48AnZl [4] Batch No.49LeTo [13] Batch No.50OsCa [2] Batch No.51GeRi [2] Batch No.52BoLi [1] Batch No.53WeKe [1] Batch No.54BoMi [2] Batch No.55SeZa [4] Batch No.56Rolb [3] Batch No.57AxOr [6] Batch No.58FrFi [2] Batch No.59ViNe [1] Batch No.60AbOn [1] Batch No.61VaPet [1] Batch No.62BoSid [2] Batch No.63PaRai [3] Batch No.64SeBor [11] Batch No.65AIGol [5] Batch No.66VAPan [1] Batch No.67BoSid [2] Batch No.68MaMat [16] Batch No.69EKud [3] Batch No.70EvMar [6] Batch No.71JaRus [5] Batch No.72EvKol [1] Batch No.73VVKuz [23] Batch No.74NiMic [1] Batch No.?5VISam [3] Batch No.76NDZli [1] Batch No.77KaSum [6] Batch No.78ANZhu [5] Batch No.79OlPer [27] Batch No.80EvMar [5] Batch No.81SeRad [2] Batch No.82EvMar [2] Batch No.83VeKal [10] Batch No.84VSam [3] Batch No.85MiBab [1] Batch No. 86SeRad [2] Batch No.87

[AJR 22xii99]

56